Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Tyrannosauridae family/archive1
Tyrannosauridae family
edit
7 articles
- Note: main contributor Sheep81 has made 6 contributions since May 2008
- Contributors/nominators: Sheep81, J. Spencer, WP:DINO, Nergaal
I give you T-rex and his family! Nergaal (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - should include and Aublysodon, Alashansaurus, Deinodon, Itemirus and certainly Nanotyrannus. Yes, the former four are "dubious", whilst the latter is "possibly a juvenile specimen of Tyrannosaurus", but the confirmation/refutation of these are unlikely to come any time soon (hence the articles are stable), and in the last case there appears to be genuine ongoing controversy, and as a result I feel that this article at least should be included. The job of FTC is not to decide what is and what is not a dinosaur in this genus, but to ensure the whole of the topic is covered, and as there is a genuine possibility that Nanotyrannus is a species of dinosaur in the genus (no matter about the others!), it should certainly be included - rst20xx (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- All these represent claims that are mostly discarded by the researchers in the field:
- Aublysodon "is now widely considered to be just a juvenile tyrannosaurine"
- Alashansaurus "possibly related to Tyrannosaurus, but has not yet been fully described"
- Deinodon "is today a dubious scientific name of little use"
- Itemirus "was a possible Tyrannosaurid"
- Nanotyrannus "is often considered to be a juvenile T-rex"
- As such, I believe these articles ought not be a part of the topic, especially since I've seen singles NOT covered in any albums not to be necessary as a part of discography topics. At best the nanot-rex should be a subtopic of a T-rex topic. Nergaal (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- All these represent claims that are mostly discarded by the researchers in the field:
- Support. I have taken a look at the articles rst20xx belives should be included in the topic. They all appear to me to be riddled with speculation. Obviously any study of animals that have been extinct for millions or years involves some degree of speculation, but I think we have to go with what the best available science of today says. Using that standard I think the topic is as complete as it can be made at this time. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Rreagan007 and Nergall on this one. Zginder 2008-11-03T21:06Z (UTC)
- Support - Per Rreagan007 and Nergall. ~~ ComputerGuy 22:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support why it took so long to appear a Dinosaur FTC? igordebraga ≠ 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support. There probably should have been some mention of this nomination at WT:DINO. The FAC process for these articles took three years. These are all the major genera; bits and pieces like Chingkankousaurus (scraps of bone dubiously assigned to tyrannosaurids) will probably never reach FA or GA status: there isn't enough work on them. The work of Currie et al. (2003), Holtz (2004), and Carr et al. (2005) support only these six plus Nanotyrannus as valid genera, and the status of Nanotyrannus is in doubt (and Carr et al. even merges Tarbosaurus and Gorgosaurus). When Bakker, Larson, and Currie publish their new paper, the status of Nanotyrannus can be redetermined. But at this time, Wikipedia's central Tyrannosauridae articles closely resemble that of The Dinosauria (Second Edition), and there's no reason for Wikipedia to second-guess those experts. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nanotyrannus may be in doubt, but its article led me to believe that there is genuine controversy over its classification. You're right that it's not our job to try and be experts and draw our own conclusions, but you're wrong in arguing that therefore the article should be excluded - why should it be? Surely the conclusion is that it should be included, as that way all the information on the subject is included within the scope of the topic. We'd be drawing the conclusion that it is NOT a genuine member of the family by excluding it! rst20xx (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that singles not within any albums are not a genuine member of the artist's discography by excluding them from a topic? Anyways, all of the three examples in fact contain only a very limited number of skeletal remains and is really hard for researchers to say weather they are or not a member of this family, and as such I don't quite understand your opinion of having to include them in this topic. I am sure that if someone wants to add them later on nobody would oppose. On the other hand, by mandating to include them now you seem to force them to be genuine members of the family. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- You see I would argue the opposite, I would say that including them leaves open the possibility that they are members, whereas excluding them is saying they are not. Though it seems to me that only Nanotyrannus has actual ongoing controversy so I am willing to drop the issue on the others somewhat. Finally, I don't see where your comparison to singles with discographies comes from - rst20xx (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Singles are a part of the artist's discography (but they are not albums). While these examples you gave may be a part of the family. As for the other part, even if they were a part of the family, because they are relatively not well known, they may be seen as less "important" members of the family. Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- By this same logic, we should require Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, Ixion, and a dozen other solar system objects in the dwarf planets topic because they are probable or possible dwarf planets, even though they have not yet been classified as such. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Singles are a part of the artist's discography (but they are not albums). While these examples you gave may be a part of the family. As for the other part, even if they were a part of the family, because they are relatively not well known, they may be seen as less "important" members of the family. Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- You see I would argue the opposite, I would say that including them leaves open the possibility that they are members, whereas excluding them is saying they are not. Though it seems to me that only Nanotyrannus has actual ongoing controversy so I am willing to drop the issue on the others somewhat. Finally, I don't see where your comparison to singles with discographies comes from - rst20xx (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that singles not within any albums are not a genuine member of the artist's discography by excluding them from a topic? Anyways, all of the three examples in fact contain only a very limited number of skeletal remains and is really hard for researchers to say weather they are or not a member of this family, and as such I don't quite understand your opinion of having to include them in this topic. I am sure that if someone wants to add them later on nobody would oppose. On the other hand, by mandating to include them now you seem to force them to be genuine members of the family. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nanotyrannus may be in doubt, but its article led me to believe that there is genuine controversy over its classification. You're right that it's not our job to try and be experts and draw our own conclusions, but you're wrong in arguing that therefore the article should be excluded - why should it be? Surely the conclusion is that it should be included, as that way all the information on the subject is included within the scope of the topic. We'd be drawing the conclusion that it is NOT a genuine member of the family by excluding it! rst20xx (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- A family is a nomenclatural unit, not a physical entity. So are genus names. All the genus names listed above, though dubious, are valid and should be included. The only names that should not be included are junior synonyms (or names that have been otherwise rejected like Manospondylus). Under no nomenclatural code are nomina dubia excluded (or even really recognized). Excluding Aublysodon or Deinodon would be fairly arbitrary. Statements like "Aublysodon "is now widely considered to be just a juvenile tyrannosaurine"" fail to recognize the basic distinction between a specimen (undiagnosable teeth) and its name (validly proposed under an accepted zoological code). A family is a group of names, not a group of specimens. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- (Response to Rreagan007) No, because those are not classified as dwarf planets (yet). There is no equivalent body making official classifications with regards to dinosaur families - rst20xx (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- A family is a nomenclatural unit, not a physical entity. So are genus names. All the genus names listed above, though dubious, are valid and should be included. The only names that should not be included are junior synonyms (or names that have been otherwise rejected like Manospondylus). Under no nomenclatural code are nomina dubia excluded (or even really recognized). Excluding Aublysodon or Deinodon would be fairly arbitrary. Statements like "Aublysodon "is now widely considered to be just a juvenile tyrannosaurine"" fail to recognize the basic distinction between a specimen (undiagnosable teeth) and its name (validly proposed under an accepted zoological code). A family is a group of names, not a group of specimens. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose — I'm with Rst20xx on this one. Species that might be part of this group, or were for a long time thought to be part of it, should be included if we want this topic to be comprehensive for someone researching the subject. If there were an official body that decided what species are members of the group, like there is for dwarf planets, things would be different. I would be in support this if the main article included a sub-section about the borderline species and why they are likely not true members (the borderline species are currently only given a brief mention). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Again, hate to keep harping on this, but this common mistake in logic is what's fueling the discussion. They're all unquestionably members. What's questionable is that some of them are distinct members. Deinodon represents a species of tyrannosaurid, with 100% certainty. The problem is it's impossible to determine which one. The name is suspect, not the species, and there is a body that governs the name (the ICZN)--according to their rules it's valid, so it should be included. (In fact, according to their rules, this should be Deinodontidae, not Tyrannosauridae, but since the literature universally likes to ignore that we might as well follow suit ;) ). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am personally confused: is deinodon a separate specie or not? Nergaal (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Deinodon was named for teeth. At the time, the teeth were unique, so they named a new species. Later, more tyrannosaurs were found. Tyrannosaurus, Gorgosaurus, etc. All were different species, but all their teeth were basically the same. Normally, this would mean on of the new names gets thrown out and Deinodon takes priority. But, if all their teeth are basically the same, but they're different species, how do we know which species the Deinodon teeth came from? If it came from Tyrannosaurus, the name Tyrannosaurus gets thrown out, and replaced by Deinodon. If it came from Gorgosaurus, the name Gorgosaurus gets thrown out, and replaced with Deinodon. But we can't tell which it came from, all the teeth look the same. So Deinodon is a nomen dubium--"dubious name." The name can't be matched to a species, but it's still a valid name because it's the oldest and follows all the rules for proper naming.
- As you can see, the situation is way more complicated than a simple "which are valid species and which aren't" when it comes to fossils, which is the point people here are missing. That, and the fact that a Family is a collection of valid Genus names, not a collection of valid 'real' species.Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- For us, the issue isn't so much whether it's a distinct species, but whether it is necessary information about the topic. If someone wanted to have a good encyclopedic understanding about science's current conception of Tyrannosauridae, would they need to read those other articles? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that for now Nanotyrannus is important to include. If not, it should be merged with T. rex, which I'd oppose (see comments below). Deinodon was the first tyrannosaurid to be named, the first carnivorous dinosaur to get a family name, and is very important to the history of this family and dinosaurs in general. I don't see any logical reason to exlude it. Even if it's not a valid "species" (it is, one way or another), it's an important topic in this category. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- For us, the issue isn't so much whether it's a distinct species, but whether it is necessary information about the topic. If someone wanted to have a good encyclopedic understanding about science's current conception of Tyrannosauridae, would they need to read those other articles? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am personally confused: is deinodon a separate specie or not? Nergaal (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Again, hate to keep harping on this, but this common mistake in logic is what's fueling the discussion. They're all unquestionably members. What's questionable is that some of them are distinct members. Deinodon represents a species of tyrannosaurid, with 100% certainty. The problem is it's impossible to determine which one. The name is suspect, not the species, and there is a body that governs the name (the ICZN)--according to their rules it's valid, so it should be included. (In fact, according to their rules, this should be Deinodontidae, not Tyrannosauridae, but since the literature universally likes to ignore that we might as well follow suit ;) ). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Moral support as a contributor. The family and the core six genera are taken care of. Deinodon and Aublysodon are not actually all that bad; what is present in each could serve as the cores of GAs, albeit very boring GAs. J. Spencer (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per ComputerGuy (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per rst20xx's sentiments. While I understand User:Firsfron's concern about the smaller, less written articles which cannot get GA, I'm still unsure about whether excluding Nanotyrannus is a neutral thing to do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- The nano- should ONLY be a part of a subtopic on Trex alone! Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no consensus yet on whether Nanotyrannus is a juvenile T. rex or not. In fact last I heard, the opinion in the study of Jane may be that it is in fact a distinct species. Include it until a paper is published stating an opinion one way or the other. We shouldn't go by our personal opinions here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- The nano- should ONLY be a part of a subtopic on Trex alone! Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, as I've argued above, there's no good reason to exclude some of these taxa from the topic, unless the topic is specifically to only include robustly understood specimens. Which would seem to ignore the point of having a topic on tyrannosaurids. Even the taxa that likely do not represent distinct species, they're important to the history of the study and nomenclature of Tyrannosauridae. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Close with no consensus - 7 supports and 4 opposes makes a majority, but not consensus - rst20xx (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)