Talk:Ornithischia

message: I find it well-strange, confusing even, that the Ornithischia are unrelated to Therapoda. I mean, bird hipped dionsaurs all go extinct, but lizard hipped dinosaurs give rise to birds and then go extinct. seems crazy. And all the Ornithischia are big lumbering quadrapeds, all guts and boney plates (or long necks). Not bird like at all. Its like someone made a mistake somewhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.64.71 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "bird-like" refers to their pubis which is shifted forward as in the bird lineage (the forward shifted pubis evolved separately in the two lineages). Besides that they really aren't bird-like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaurkimball (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: I'll be editing this page over the next month and a half for class. Let me know if anything needs to be fixed. Cheers, Dinosaurkimball (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing for Class

message: The taxobox image could use work, in my opinion. It's not only incredibly crudely put together, but the Stegosaurus image contains an Allosaurus, which is unhelpful, and I think a full image of a hadrosaur instead of just the hip would be preferable (diagrams of the hip anatomy already feature in the text). Lusotitan 19:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I've thought so too, for most of the collage images. I'd suggest having 6 taxa, like already, with 1 from each of the major groups (ankylosauria, stegosauria, ceratopsia, pachycephalosauria, hadrosauria, "hypsilophodontia". IJReid  04:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, the taxobox image was finally changed.BleachedRice (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot better, although it is a bit small vertically. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you could probably make the thumbs more visible by arranging them vertically instead (two in each row). FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaving this for a more enlightened user to check, but it seems to me that the bottom right picture is not a hadrosaur nor the bottom left one a ceratopsian as the "clockwise" legend implies but actually the other way round if I'm not mistaken. Miluyali (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ornithischia. 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/20081201083750/http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/100.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/100.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) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was thinking about the predentary article, and given that the topic is specifically about an anatomical trait of this group, and it's so short it'd be pretty sad even as a section here, I see no reason why it's notable enough to have as its own article instead of here, especially when it's such an important trait, it should be totally visible here. I can't think of any sort of similar article within the scope of the WikiProject. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: By putting a question mark next to Sulcimentisauria in the taxobox, could that perhaps not imply that everything it is said to contain is perhaps not an ornithischian? And, therefore, that the question marks next to the taxa listed underneath Sulcimentisauria serve to question their placement specifically within Sulcimentisauria, rather than within Ornithischia generally (which contextual knowledge tells us is what is intended)?
Because I feel the current presentation could be interpreted ambiguously I think it could do with some kind of elaboration in there about the nature of Sulcimentisauria, perhaps vaguely similar to how Megalosauroidea is referred to in the Carnosauria taxobox. I think interpreting the subgroups in that taxobox is pretty intuitive and unambiguous. However, that logic absolutely contradicts the logic here, as while Megalosauroidea is questioned, each of the groups within it are not individually. Meanwhile as it stands here, there are six main taxa listed (Asilisaurus, Chilesaurus, Daemonosaurus, Lewisuchus, Soumyasaurus and Sulcimentisauria) and they've all got question marks next to them. So at least one of these needs changing. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, Megalosauroidea should not be included in that taxobox anyway, only each of the subclades individually, since according to Rauhut and Pol (2019) they do not collectively form a clade to the exclusion of Allosauroidea (in fact, Piatnitzkysauridae is found to fall within Allosauroidea). Besides that though, I still feel that the use of question marks there is more intuitive. It's also consistent with the way question marks are (at least usually) used in the taxonomic navboxes. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone's responded but user Fanboyphilosopher very reasonably simplified the list by just including Silesauridae as a unit, except with its possible paraphyly noted. To me, this seems the best way to resolve the issue. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns that the question marks next to the subgroups of the taxobox could be interpreted ambiguously 

message: Support the 2020 proposal to merge the obsolete group Fabrosauridae to here. Klbrain (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Going UP the clading tree from Triceratops, one finds all sorts of clades and subgroups, all leading, via Cerapoda) to Ornithischia.  But Ornithischia does not mention Cerapoda or any of those other subgroups!  In case it's not obvious ... this is WRONG. Jamesdowallen (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ornithischia mentions Genasauria which mentions Neornithischia with mentions Cerapoda. IJReid  02:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triceratops (Cerapoda) is missing 

message: The redirect Bird like reptile has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Plantdrew (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Bird like reptile]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]