Talk:Venyukovioidea

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venyukovioidea. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110824004827/http://paleodb.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=150425&is_real_user=1 to http://paleodb.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=150425&is_real_user=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Following on from the recent merge with Venyukoviamorpha, I think it would also be a good idea to merge Venyukoviidae and "Otsheridae" [sic] into Venyukovioidea too. Main reason being that these subgroups have not been explicitly defined by and aren't in use by modern researchers, as the internal relationships of venyukovioids are not resolved to make use of them.

I feel it would be misleading to continue to present them as definitive subgroups as we currently do, especially as any statements on their contents or characteristics relies on outdated and sometimes contradictory literature. They also cannot accommodate more recent but significant genera like Suminia. I believe that the scope and contents applicable to each can not only be appropriately covered on Venyukovioidea, but would be more coherently explained in that context. That both family articles are just stubs would also make this an easy process. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Aside from the nom reasons, which I support, each of these "families" have only two species each, so there's no point in having two permastub articles for these tiny questionably valid families. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected the articles, there was no content worth merging (both were one sentence stubs). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Improvement needed

Some expert existence in improving the Venyukoviamorpha section, recently merged, would be appreciated. I note that User:Hemiauchenia thinks that is needed, as least if their edit summary is to be believed. Klbrain (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

DrawingDinosaurs has stated offwiki that he is working on improving this article. Venyukoviamorpha is widely regarded as a synonym of Venyukovioidea, so having two synonyms with two different headers and taxoboxes makes no sense. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

My reading of the former Venyukoviamorpha page was that Venyukoviamorpha is an extinct superfamily of anomodont therapsids under the superorder Venyukovoidea which is why I had merged that page as a section, rather than integrating it more completely. As per that earlier discussion (Talk:Venyukoviamorpha#Merger discussion), I suggest that we reinstate the merge (which has a lot of references) and refine in situ. Klbrain (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Venyukoviamorpha is so obscure that it seems to have only ever been used in 5 papers, according to google scholar, with only one of these uses being after 2000 (this is probably missing some historical usage, including foreign language publications, but my point is that the usage of this term has been essentially non-existent in recent literature). This is much less than the admittedly mearge 26 times Venyukovioidea has been used, which mostly postdates 2000. These are essentially synonyms. They don't appear to differ by the exclusion/inclusion of different taxa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have just finished incorporating the text for Venyukoviamorpha and expanded the article overall, so this should no longer be an issue. Cheers, DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 12:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)