Talk:Achelousaurus

message: The article says that Sampson named the animal in 1996, but in the table on the left-hand side of the page, it says "Sampson, 1995". Which is true? Or did he only give it a name a year after he published the description? Or am I not reading this correctly? 71.217.98.158 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typo.  It was 1995. J. Spencer 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1994 in fact :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There still seems to be a few instances of 1995 in the history section. Should they all be changed to 1994, ? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There was a published abstract in 1994, validly naming the taxon as it contained a sufficient description, and the full-length article in 1995.--MWAK (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I wonder if I ever saw that abstract then. But in that case, the following sentence should be changed? "Until 1995, only one new genus of centrosaurine dinosaur had been named since". FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could change it but this jars a bit with the 1995 article (i.e. the source of the claim) presenting itself as the naming article. It was written without taking into account a pre-existing abstract.--MWAK (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. Confusing situation, nonetheless... Now we're here, I think we could need some more ceratopsian FAs... I wonder how much of the text here could be reused in Einiosaurus (by just copy-pasting). FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a bit I'd say :o). But it would be more fun to reformulate, also avoiding objections of redundancy. I'll give it a try. However, I would postpone a full FA process until Scannella has published his research. He might conclude that the taxa are synonyms...--MWAK (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, is this underway? Any abstracts? I wonder which would become the senior synonym... Given the pretty large variation within other ceratopsian species, I've wondered the same... It could seem Einiosaurus is just an ontogenetic stage towards Achelousaurus. So yeah, maybe work on Einiosaurus should be avoided until then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No abstracts, I believe, other than the one we are already giving. I vote for Achelousaurus.--MWAK (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date confusion 

message: The pronunciation does not seem to fit the spelling - the syllabification is off. A typo somewhere? kwami 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation doubtful 

message: *Hi , I hope all is well! I saw the description of Stellasaurus has implications for Achelousaurus, just so we're aware some expansion might be warranted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Funkmonk! Well, I've not yet succumbed to the virus... Indeed there are consequences :o). I'll first create a full Dutch article and then apply the knowledge thus gleaned.--MWAK (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear, on both accounts! I haven't succumbed either, but my PC did, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the Stellasaurus description says "The species name ancellae honours Museum of the Rockies field palaeontologist and fossil preparator Carrie Ancell, who discovered and prepared MOR 492, the holotype specimen of Stellasaurus ancellae, as well as the holotype of Achelousaurus horneri, and co-discovered the holotype of Einiosaurus procurvicornis" but here we say "The holotype specimen MOR 485 was collected by Hostetter and Ray Rogers". I wonder which is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I had been hoping to do the English Stellasaurus article, if you don't mind. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think you'd be free to do that. I wonder if we should modify this or this restoration into Stellasaurus... FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Never object when another fellow offers to do the work :o). The images are problematic. On the one hand, they are largely based on Stellasaurus already, on the other hand their technical quality is limited. As regards Ancell, I think they just wanted to say that she prepared the Achelousaurus holotype and was part of the team at the site where it was found.--MWAK (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the figures from the new paper free use to be uploaded? Some of them are very nice. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I added one of the photos from it to the taxobox. There is also another photo of the frill from the old Rubeosaurus paper, but we probably don't need both. On the othe rhand, the new paper has an image of the nasal horn that shows it from three instead of just two angles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, presently the article already states that the 2020 study does not see Achelousaurus and Einiosaurus as contemporaneous.--MWAK (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, and it seems even the pre-2020 text is not as definite as I remembered. But I was wondering about this image that shows them side by side too, if I should make a version that makes them both into Achelousaurus and use that instead? I tried to add info from the new paper, but is there more you think should be added before it is TFA? It was pretty complicated, so I was unsure about how much info about how the various traits evolved should be included. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The image could be changed, of course, but perhaps it has an added value to show both forms, especially as there is no implication they would be strictly contemporaneous. The paper is problematic for me as it is implicitly based on the tenet that anagenesis would be more parsimonious, a premise that I find untenable when applying a correct science of philosophy. Mentioning it would either propagate a falsehood or demand a deeper analysis that is difficult to reconcile with a NPOV...--MWAK (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe it can stay as is until something becomes clearer about the issue. Do you think the article currently covers the new paper adequately (the stuff I've added)? FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so. The deeper aspects of the paper have little bearing on Achelousaurus as such.--MWAK (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok! I had been fearing for a while that someone would synonymise Achelousaurus and Einiosaurus one day, but at least that seems less likely now, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Might still happen :o). Would not be a cogent reason to merge the articles, though.--MWAK (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, the (very interesting) article concludes that MOR 456 8-8-87-1 and MOR 591 each show a distinctive maturation pattern, provisionally interpreting this within the hypothesis that MOR 591 is a subadult Achelousaurus. Nice to see that they adopt our element identification style for skull diagrams ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, maybe it looks a little more confusing with the faded photo underneath the lines? Anyhow, added to the article hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Stellasaurus''

message: Hey guys,
As I went through through the article fixing small grammar issues this morning, I found this: "In 1995, Sampson, basing himself on revised data, estimated that the layers investigated represented a longer period than the initially assumed 500,000 years [...]" What does 'basing himself' mean in this context? I thought it meant he was basing his conclusions on revised data, but MWAK says it wasn't based on data. As it stands, I don't know what the sentence is supposed to be saying. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sampson wasn't based on data, his opinion was. Therefore, if Sampson is the subject of the sentence, it is stylistically more correct to say "basing himself on". And yes, this is a bit odd, as language often is. Oddness is never a valid argument against idiom :o)--MWAK (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the wording could be improved, "basing hismelf" seems a bit awkward, and the many insert sentences give a broken flow. How about "Based on revised data in 1995, Sampson estimated", "Based on revised data, Sampson estimated in 1995", or some such? I don't think anyone would think the man himself is based on data, especially not if "based" comes that long before the name. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But why would it be awkward? It's simply an existing construction. There is also the problem that "based on" often has the meaning of "according to". But we can easily improve the flow regardless.--MWAK (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is not basing himself on the data (just like he isn't based on data), he is basing his conclusions/estimate on the data, so I think the "himself" part is a bit superfluous/misplaced. So perhaps "basing his conclusions on revised data" could also work. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, "basing himself on" is a perfectly valid way to say it? Subjectively it may sound weird, but it's not in any way incorrect. Lusotitan 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this is simply an existing idiom. You're not supposed to analyse whether it's logical! Of course, both possibilities are idiom. Let's compare them. If we say "Based on these data, Professor X concluded...", this is ambiguous and rather colloquial. "Basing himself on these data, Professor X concluded...", is an established, unambiguous but more formal construction. Ideal for an encyclopedia.--MWAK (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, both are correct, in any case, I think the new version is better, as the text is less broken up. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I would not call Paul's names nomina nuda. But I fear that the Wikipedia taxoboxes are silly enough as they are, a curious mixture of real science, protoscience and OR, and are best kept as lean as possible.--MWAK (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't argue with that, I wondered about it because someone added some Paul synonyms to the Gallimimus taxobox, which no one else recognises either, and on my screen, it makes the box clash with the first image. In any case, I redirected Centrosaurus horneri here, which should be warranted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, their sheer size can be annoying :o). The names are of course simply published synonyms within a scientific context and therefore must be mentioned somewhere.--MWAK (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basing himself 

message: "Skull of holotype specimen MOR 485 (with reconstructed parts in blue)". Blue?  Davidships (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Or turquoise? To be honest, I'm colour-blind, but of the red-green variety, so though it shouldn't affect how I see blue, feel free to suggest another description. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is mainly the lower jaw, that looks a combination of grey (perhaps a tinge of blue in that) and very light pink to me - compared with all the real blue (light and dark) that I can see on every WP page.  But perhaps I have a different deficiency. Davidships (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, should we try with grey (gray, since it's US English) then? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with gray, but perhaps we should have a "third pair of eyes" to comment? Davidships (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ping my FAC co-nominator , he must have looked at the photo a few times... FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Looks like a light slate grey with some funky lighting overhead to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

text: It seems a cool lilac. Calling it blue-grey might be best to discern it from the grey-brown of the authentic bone remains.--MWAK (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, is everyone happy with blue-grey? Wow, this is a great example of gaining consensus on Wikipedia, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep!! Davidships (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead photo 

message: It has been argued that 1995 is the valid date because Art. 9.10 ICZN would indicate names in abstracts as non-valid. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of said article. Let's consider the text:
[Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code] 9.10. materials issued primarily to participants at meetings (e.g. symposia, colloquia, congresses, or workshops), including abstracts and texts of presentations or posters
From this it is obvious that a name in an abstract is only invalid if that abstract was mainly issued at a meeting. If the abstract is also published in some abstract book edition, the name is valid. This very possibility is adressed by:
Recommendation 9A. Avoidance of new names and acts in meeting abstracts. Authors should not include new names and nomenclatural acts in abstracts of papers or posters to be presented at meetings. This avoids the appearance that they are published and prevents inadvertent publication if the abstracts are widely distributed (For disclaimer of abstracts volumes, see Recommendation 8G.)
This recognises that an abstract volume being published constitutes a valid publication. That was exactly what happened in this case. I could not discover any disclaimer.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean that Yunyangosaurus and Jindipelta are both valid taxa described in 2019? 2001:4453:5C6:CB00:A093:6F80:ADD2:CE6F (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a sufficient description as well as a (now obligatory) genus et species nova indication and a disclaimer is lacking.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Is 1994 or 1995 the date of naming?