Talk:List of crurotarsan genera

message: Crurotarsans are such a diverse group in terms of diet, lifestyle, morphology and time period wherein they lived that I think it would be more useful if this list was split into a few more specific ones:
* List of aetosaurs
* List of rauisuchians
* List of phytosaurs
* List of crocodilians
What do you guys think? I know the lists would be quite a bit shorter, but in my opinion they would be a bit more coherent. Abyssal leviathin 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. When I started this list I gave thought to that quandary but ultimately considered it needless for the purpose of this list. My objective, to make it clear, was listing genera pertaining or that pertained to the clade Crurotarsi, much as in List of dinosaurs which are as or more diverse even without birds. Splitting the list the way you propose one would get a "cruft" of basal forms one would not know where to put ("basal crurotarsans"?) and very short lists that would look better on the pertinent articles. I'd rather lump the genera in this list and leave the minutiae of classification to the clade articles. The only list that would fare better would be that of crocodilians but since it is a clade with extant genera and there are already lists pertaining to crocodilian species, I  though it was unnecessary duplication of information and, as a cladist, an arbitrary cuttoff that rendered a neat monophyletic list paraphyletic ;-) I'm all for including links to the pertinent taxonomical articles in the See also section and in the Introduction, though. Dracontes (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty. You've made your point. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Split the List?

message: ...has been completed for the letter 'A', and is available here. A lot of work went into this, and I think the merits and disadvantages of a table-fied list can be discussed at this point, now that we can see for ourselves how the data would be presented. Comments? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The one thing I'd watch out for is the status column, as there's always subjectivity in synonymies and declaring something dubious.  Perhaps that column should be used sparingly? J. Spencer (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I get where you're coming from, but it was subjective before the table was made, too, and no one had any qualms about adding basically the same information was included when it was a bullet-list. And, I think we can be confident enough in using it to reflect the current scientific consensus; I don't think there's too much to worry about. :) Abyssal (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one name is listed as dubious on the current list. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there'll be plenty more though/ :PAbyssal (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to admit I like it. One minor quibble though, the size of the article. Last time I checked, its at 47 kilobytes. The "some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb" message comes up. Does anyone know if anyone if that is a major concern or not? If it is, then the list could be split into crocs, rauisuchians etc as Abyssal had earlier suggested. Either way I like the table-ified version. Good work A :) Mark t young (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking from personal experience, I don't really have trouble with articles of that size- and my internet connection sux. They take longer to load, but not horribly so. Besides, a lot of our dinosaur articles are bigger than that, some more than twice as big. :) Abyssal (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abyssal's version

message: Cystosaurus: there is no a Wikipedia article on such a crurotarsan. The link points at Cryptosaurus that was a dinosaur. Is this correct?
Another dinosaur, described as Omosaurus, was renamed Dacentrurus because a crocodilian Omosaurus had already been named. Where is that Omosaurus on this list? What crocodilian is it?
31.11.242.231 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cystosaurus'' and ''Omosaurus''