Talk:Latromirus

Taxonomic validity

Just something worth noting - this taxon is not valid as per International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature rules, which excludes preprints from taxonomic validity. Also, a chunk of the material assigned to this taxon has been shown to be conspecific with Parioscorpio (see Anderson et al. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12534). Severan (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Also note that "Xus yus" is a placeholder name and not the intended final name of the taxon. It should have been obvious that the etymology stated in the preprint was for the final name and not "Xus yus". "Xus yus" is a meaningless combination of letters and actually originates as a hypothetical example from Article 70.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.[1] I recommend that this page be merged with Waukesha Biota, particularly the section on cheloniellids. It should not be merged with Parioscorpio, as the intended holotype of "Xus" has not yet been referred to that taxon. Carnoferox (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, the page could be retitled to "Latromirus tridens", which is the informal name used for this taxon in Wendruff's 2016 thesis.[2] Carnoferox (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it... maybe

I've moved the page. Arguably it should be deleted altogether, because this supposed genus & species doesn't have any available name yet, but if it's been up since 2018 (and the thesis publicly accessible since 2016) that ship has probably sailed.

The ability of the original author of this article to believe that X is the Latin word for "hunter", US is the Latin word for "extraordinary, and yus is the Latin word for a three-pronged spear, all just because the preprint appears to claim so in an attempt to keep the name secret, is really... striking.

I've also fixed such things as the fact that et is not an abbreviation; it is a Latin word for "and". Et al. is short for et alii, meaning "and others (at least one of whom is male)", or for et aliae, meaning "and others (which are all female)".

David Marjanović (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Marjanović: I've 'fixed' this page but was doing it on autopilot and didn't realise it wasn't fully described yet. I marked it with the undescribed category, but feel free to revert if you think it was better as it was. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Marjanović and YorkshireExpat: No, no, no. This article should probably not exist yet. Wikipedia should not jump the gun and present species before they are described or significantly covered by reliable published sources. Look at all the WP:OR WP:SYN gymnastics required to cite ICZN articles. Research that exists only in preprints or unpublished theses probably does not meet notability. It's fun to play pretend paleontologist here on Wikipedia, but it results in poor quality and/or policy-violating articles. I propose this be draftified until it is formally published. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Don't disagree. Do what you need to do! YorkshireExpat (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Xus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Xus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 14#Xus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

""Latromirus"" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "Latromirus". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 2#"Latromirus" until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)