Talk:Diplodocoidea

Orphaned references in Diplodocoidea

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diplodocoidea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TMB2015":

• From Diplodocimorpha: Tschopp, E.; Mateus, O.; Benson, R.B.J. (2015). "A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda)". PeerJ. 3: e857. doi:10.7717/peerj.857.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• From Othniel Charles Marsh: Tschopp, E.; Mateus, O. V.; Benson, R. B. J. (2015). "A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda)". PeerJ. 3: e857. doi:10.7717/peerj.857. PMC 4393826. PMID 25870766.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• From Kaatedocus: Tschopp, E.; Mateus, O. V.; Benson, R. B. J. (2015). "A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda)". PeerJ. 3: e857. doi:10.7717/peerj.857. PMC 4393826. PMID 25870766.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy of merge with Diplodocimorpha discussion

I realize now I should have put this move discussion here, and not at Talk:Diplodocimorpha, so I am copying it over here. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was unanimous agreement to merge. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Diplodocoidea and Diplodocimorpha have nearly identical content, usually differing only in the inclusion of Haplocanthosaurus and sometimes not even that. There is pretty much no value in having separate pages for the two clades, and keeping them separate would be somewhat redundant and waste editors' time with two pages to maintain rather than one. Diplodocoidea is both the more inclusive clade and gets eight times as many hits on Google Scholar, so Diplodocimorpha should be merged into Diplodocoidea. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I support this, provided its not just redirected, and the content is migrated over. The main superfamily article needs some work. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support, no need for two pages for a near-identical clade. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, with the same caveat as IJ. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal for Flagellicaudata

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was unanimous agreement to merge. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Support: Per the discussion at WT:DINO, Flagellicaudata should be merged with Diplodocoidea for the following reasons:

1. Flagellicaudata as an article only includes the etymology and a single cladogram.
2. Flagellicaudata is a node-based clade and there is little content that could be added to expand it. (WP:N)
3. A similar merge was unanimously executed above for Diplodocimorpha.
4. Flagellicaudata only gets 224 hits on google scholar, which is much fewer than either Diplodocoidea or any of the constituent families (Rebbachisauridae, Diplodocidae, Dicraeosauridae). (WP:N)
5. Flagellicaudata is only relevant in a discussion of diplodocoid systematics, which would be more effectively contained within the article for Diplodocoidea itself. (WP:REDUNDANT)
6. Sub-clades that exclude only a single family do not have their own pages for other dinosaur taxa (i.e. Pantyrannosauria, Styracosterna, Allosauria, etc.), and this would improve article format consistency for WP:DINO and WP:TREE.

A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WT:DINO. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.