Talk:Ceratopsia

message: To all the anons who keep contributing to this article: I don't care whether Ceratopsia or Ceratopia is used, but there should be only ONE article discussing them, not two. So be a little bit responsible and focus on one article. This article should be locked. Phlebas 23:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sort of an important issue that hasn't seen any play since last year... i'm gonig to take it over for discussion at Wikiproject dinosaurs.Dinoguy2 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considerations of precedence are relevant when a binomial name is attributed to a single concrete object, like a holotype. When higher taxa than the genus implicit in the binomial name, are named, precedence becomes irrelevant. There are no official rules governing the names of taxa above the level of family — and everyone has always called any higher level taxon as it pleased him. If I am at liberty to call the group "Cornufacies" or "XYZ", why am I not free to call them by a correct name?--MWAK (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Wow! This is the best GA nominee I've seen yet.  I have no suggestions for improvement, and GA awarded!  Good job! Mmoyer 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review by [[User:Mmoyer|Mmoyer

message: Bagaceratops appears twice on the cladogram--once under Bagaceratopsidae and then again under Protoceratopsidae. Bagaceratopsidae seems like a no-brainer to me, if this article does accept its validity, except that the Bagaceratops page lists it under Protoceratopsidae... somebody who is a little more knowledgeable in Ceratopsian taxonomy needs to take a look at this. 68.205.68.57 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the reason for the discrepancy looks like it's Gobiceratops. The authors of Gobi found it to clade with Baga basally to Proto. Obviously, this was not recovered in the other, earlier cladograms on the page. Gobi is a pretty new find so it's a wait and see game to see if the Gobi+Baga clade is recovered in future studies. What we should do with this, I don't know. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bagaceratops 

message: Is anyone aware of further sources on the Utah Ceratopsian discovered in 2002/announced in 2006?  The description given, mentioning two nose horns, makes me think it may be the animal displayed here, at the Royal Tyrrell Museum: , but I can't find any hint of its name. Our article here does not seem to list it, judging by the absence of any Utah Ceratopsians. Should we add it, even without a name? JN466 03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bound to be one of at least a couple of new genera in press, so it's best to let it be for the moment. J. Spencer (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceratopsian with two nose horns

message: Actually, while "Ceratopsia" is incorrect Attic Greek, it is correct from the Koine onwards, meaning "horned visage", from "opsis". So the debate is, from my point of view, pointless. After all, newer forms of Greek have often been used for scientific terms (sometimes with comic effect, e.g. "oligopsony"). Causantin (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's derived from Ceratops and not from "Ceratopsis" it's still incorrect. 144.178.207.62 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek of 'Ceratopsia' 

message: We should include a mention of the clade Cerapoda in this article. 
It would probably be better if someone more knowledgeable than myself did this. Thanks.
-- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should include a mention of the clade [[Cerapoda]] in this article. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ceratopsia. 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/20070509140736/http://www.palaeos.com:80/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/800.html#Ceratopsinae to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/800.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ceratopsomorpha was named in 1998 in the description of Zuniceratops, to describe a clade made up of Zuniceratops, Turanoceratops and Ceratopsia. This grouping is supported in most cladistic analysises since, but has only been used as a name twice, once in 2010 and another time in 2013. Should we still use the term. I personally believe we should. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Ceratopsomorpha in Article 

message: Ceratopsians are Actually Related To Rhinos. Every Entire Species Of Ceratopsians Are Definitely Related To Rhinos And Also Have Have The Same Sound Of a Elephant. (Except The Earliest Known Species That Is The Only Reptile-Like Hebvione That Looks Almost Or Clearly Nothing Like Rhinos Is “Yinlong Downsi”.) 2601:406:5000:BE80:CC9E:18B6:9BCB:18A7 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  (All) Realated To Rhinos