Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Madzia et al. paper

If anyone would like to help me write some articles for the new clades Corythosauria, Euceratopsia, Saphornithischia, Panoplosaurini and Struthiosaurini from the open-access paper by Madzia et al., that would be nice. Hiroizmeh (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hiroizmeh: I don't really see how any of these clades need their own articles; there's not much to say about them yet. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think they warrant coverage beyond taxoboxes and maybe a little text in parent articles. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need for separate articles for these clades. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Panoplosaurini and Struthiosaurini do have history as subfamily level clades so articles could theoretically be made there including that information; either was a Nodosaurinae article should probably be reintroduced. I had previously redirected it as the term had fallen out of use, but it should be back in action going forward due to this paper. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Without realizing there was a discussion for this, I'd started going over all the nodosaurid pages and rewriting, updating, etc. Nodosauridae and Polacanthinae were in need of a revision anyways, hopefully no one thinks my efforts with Panoplosaurini or Struthiosaurini were fruitless. Ideally I would also split up the Ankyllopollexia page into subpages, since having some 50 odd taxa covered by a single page when subdivisions exist seems a little unnecessary (I'd do the same for Titanosauria but that phylogeny is even more of a mess). I was considering raising Hadrosauriformes to its own page status, since Neoiguanodontia is a synonym of it when Hypselospinus is not basal, and that creates some sort of useful division between Camptosaurus and Altirhinus. Thoughts? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know much about hadrosauroids, but I do want to say thanks for working on those articles. Hiroizmeh (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Theres also the additional complications I forgot to bring up. Following the PhyloCode, the author of first spelling is cited as the authority, alongside the authors of the formal naming (see Regnum for examples). All groups named or formalized in the paper are also clades, not tribes or subfamilies etc anymore. Do we incorporate both of these updates following the PhyloCode, or follow the preexisting linneaen ranks (even when a clade eg Panoplosaurini was never a tribe?) or the "proper" authority citations (see Nodosaurinae as an example of the PhyloCode method vs any other page)? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the bee hummingbird the worlds smallest dinosaur? Should this be noted in the lead?

See Talk:Bee_hummingbird#Again_that_dinosaur_thing_in_the_lede.... Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrea Cau

Bubblesorg has gone ahead and created a 1 line stub article for Andrea Cau. As much respect as I have for Cau's work, I am not sure WP:PROF is met at such an early stage in his career. Not sure what to do with the article. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if Cau would be notable enough to warrant making a page for him. It would probably have been a smart descision to discuss the creation beforehand, but we can always discuss it now. Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable enough by any means. He's just a random palaeontologist that happens to be more known due to having a blog. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 13:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if he were notable enough, a lot of his notability and (in)famousness comes from him being relatively arrogant and combative towards others, this has been shown on multiple ocaisions, including this [1] incident involving paleoartist H. Sharpe. -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I get that Cau comes off as pretentious jerk, but paleotwitter is truthfully full of annoying people who think that they know more than the experts, and Caus frustration with that is very understandable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Cau attempted to discredit Sharpe's work over questioning Cau's lifestyle hypothesis is not a good look, especially since Cau is an established scientist. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea of the full context of this coversation is so I can't judge it fully, that said, this is just some stupid social media drama. Should we delete Jingmai O'Connor because she once called Mickey Mortimer a "bitch" while drunk on Facebook due to Mortimer questioning the assignment of one of the specimens she worked on? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just trying to say that you can't write this off as "Cau is understandably annoyed because paleotwitter is bad" --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the record now we're on the subject, if someone wants to create articles about palaeontologists, we have a list of needed, notable palaeontologists here:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The list of "needed" paleontologists seems very biased towards vertebrate paleontologists at the expense of other subdisciplines and some of them seem unlikely to pass WP:PROF if taken to AfD Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to weed it out or add anyone. Such lists are always tentative. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

List of sauropodomorph type specimens

I stumbled across the following article: List of sauropodomorph type specimens, mostly created by Abyssal. The article contains only three entries, despite the fact that there are somewhere around 400 sauropodomorph species, and, by extension, type specimens. This article seems to me to be of dubious value, certainly as is. Do editors here think that this article is worth improving, or should this go to AFD? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Such a list – if complete and well-done – could be interesting as it shows what types are present in a particular collection. However, I can't think of more use cases apart from this; every species has a type specimen, so this might be largely redundant with any list of species. And this particular list is not useful in its current state at all and has tons of issues. I lean towards AFD. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The one other use for such a list I can think of (though this information is not currently included) is information on what material is preserved for each type specimen. Overall, though, I agree that most information in this list would better be included in a list of species. I've been considering making a List of sauropod species article; do other editors think such an article would be a good idea? Ornithopsis (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've prodded the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No objection from me, but I figure I might as well try and add to it to see if it's salvageable. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding species lists: I personally think, generally yes, that could be useful, but it is a good deal of work. Would your list of sauropod species contain all species that have ever been referred to Sauropoda, including synonyms and stuff? This would be the approach taken by the List of dinosaur genera. I fear that going with "valid species only" will be difficult, because species are often not universally accepted, and their validity (and invalidity) is very often not sufficiently discussed in the literature. Same issue may apply to the List of sauropodomorph type specimens. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thought: If it is going to be the List of sauropod species, how do we cover basal sauropodomorph species? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My intention would be to include every sauropod species name except nomina nuda, whether a valid species, nomen dubium, or junior synonym, with a separate column noting its current taxonomic status. I'm thinking of including supplementary lists at the end of the page for nomina nuda and taxa formerly referred to Sauropoda, but we'll see. Likewise, the list of sauropodomorph type specimens would also include type specimens of invalid species. I was thinking there could be a separate list for "prosauropods", if somebody wanted to make it—I feel that there's a natural enough division of Sauropodomorpha into "prosauropods" and sauropods to favor having a sauropod-specific list. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I don't see a natural division into "prosauropods" and sauropods (it would need to be the List of basal sauropodomorphs if anything), but I see that splitting this up might be a good idea simply to keep the lists at a reasonable size. Concerning the List of sauropodomorph type specimens, I think that the specimen number needs to be the first column (because it is the list of type specimens, not the list of species). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I think that we need a column "Author + year". This seems more important to me than "Country" and "Age". Another current issue is the sourcing; it needs to be clear somehow which information is covered by what source, so we might either need inline citations in every single field or perhaps an extra column containing the primary reference. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to consider this as a possible endeavour to overhaul the current dinosaur list, perhaps including basal sauropodomorphs as basal dinosaurs, outside distinctions like theropoda, sauropoda, and ornithischia? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jens: "Prosauropods" vs. "Basal sauropodomorphs" is semantics; you know what I mean. Author and year is definitely good for a list of species, but is it needed for a list of type specimens? Agreed that the specimen should come first. This is also relevant for the rare cases of objective junior synonyms. IJReid: In what way do you mean? I think the general three-way split of Ornithischia, Sauropodomorpha, and Theropoda is fine, but for the purposes of the list I'm working on, I'd prefer to focus on sauropods (much as one might make a list focused on marginocephalians or thyreophorans). Ornithopsis (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Pertinent to this discussion: List of marginocephalian type specimens, List of ornithopod type specimens, List of Mesozoic theropod type specimens, and List of thyreophoran type specimens. All of these lists are almost hopelessly incomplete, though the ornithopod list was surprising after looking at the others. If one list was updated to include all known taxa, then it would be logical to do the same for all of the lists. The same if one list was deleted. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My experience with Draft:List of sauropod species is leading me to believe that a separate list for type specimens may be most appropriate after all; I am having a hard time determining which information to cut to keep the size of the list manageable, and having a separate list for type specimens would allow that column to be cut from the general list of sauropod taxa. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I still don't think the classification stuff belongs into the species list. This has WP:Synth issues especially at this fine resolution, and it doesn't make sense for invalid names (because these are not considered to be distinct taxa within that clade). Removing that stuff would free a lot of space, and obviating the need for a second list on type specimens, which would necessarily be largely redundant in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the classification stuff falls under WP:SYNTH. I don't think that saying what clade an invalid taxon belongs to is implying that it is a distinct taxon within the clade, so I don't see the problem there. I think that including classification is important, both because it's one of the major pieces of information someone might want to know about a dinosaur and because it allows the list to be sorted so that related species are grouped together, which I think is a useful feature for the list to have. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Better now since you removed one of the columns, only keeping the "parent clade" column. But there is still a WP:SYNTH issue; for example, Vulcanodontidae and Haplocanthosauridae are, I believe, only accepted by a fraction of researchers. Camarasauridae seems redundant (as only Camarasaurus seems an undisputed member). I think we need to get rid of many of these sub-clades, and stick with the taxonomic labels that are absolutely uncontested. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not SYNTH, though. WP:SYNTH is about coming to new conclusions and trying to justify them by claiming it's a logical consequence of what is actually said in reliable sources. "Vulcanodon is a vulcanodontid" is not a new conclusion; I could easily find several papers supporting that conclusion. If this list is falling afoul of SYNTH, then so is the entire system of taxoboxes. At worst, it could be a violation of due weight, but I'm trying to ensure that I am following due weight appropriately in what I enter on the list–please feel free to bring to my attention any cases where you feel I have done so. If you can find some papers indicating that Vulcanodontidae or Haplocanthosauridae are not considered valid, I will reconsider listing them as the parent taxa of Vulcanodon and Haplocanthosaurus respectively.The fact that the parent clade of a species is monotypic does not change the fact that it is the parent clade; moreover, because this list is at the species level, Camarasauridae contains more than one item: it contains at least three valid species, and at least twelve entries on the list in total. As such, Camarasauridae is by no means a redundant taxon to include in the list. Ornithopsis (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You are deciding which shaky clades are valid and which are not, which is just what WP:Synth is all about. And defined clades are never "invalid", they are at best redundant or not useful (but may become useful again in the future). If a clade is not useful, it simply will not be used by anyone. So the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate that the use of a clade is scientific consensus, and this is the problem. For example, when entering "Haplocanthosauridae" into Google Scholar, only three papers turn up: [3]. This cannot be considered a generally used clade by any means. There are also many papers that do not group Vulcanodon and Tazoudasaurus together (or put them in a polytomy with Eusauropoda), which restricts Vulcanodontidae to Vulcanodon itself. This does not make Vulcanodontidae invalid, but simply redundant. To repeat, we have to restrict this list to clade names that are absolutely accepted and used by almost all researchers, or else it will be Synth (and the same goes with taxonboxes and navigation templates, of course). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You're the one making judgments of which clades are valid and which are not, not me. I think we should consistently use the most specific non-genus clade that there isn't serious sourceable doubt about including the species in. More to the point, I don't think that any of what you're saying is actually a systemic problem with the "parent clade" column, either; at worst, it's a small handful of problematic entries on a list that can be resolved through the normal editorial process.Ornithopsis (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you got my point. Clades that are defined on valid taxa can never be invalid, they can only be disused. As said, you can resolve the problem by keeping only those clades where current consensus of use is absolutely clear, and that is almost never the "most specific non-genus clade" available. (Consensus that a particular taxon is to be classified within that clade is a separate problem though). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

On a practical note, maybe the Paleobiological Database can be used to source such consensus of use. For example, it shows what a chaos Haplocanthosaurus was and still is: [4]. Based on this, the consensus only allows for referral to Eusauropoda or Sauropoda, but not to anything more exclusive in this case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

List of sauropod species

I have created the draft list of sauropod species I mentioned above, at Draft:List of sauropod species. I am going to be intermittently expanding the list as I have time, so in the interest of avoiding edit conflicts, I would prefer it if people did not make major additions of their own. That is, of course, a request, as policy allows anyone to contribute. I would appreciate any suggestions or critique of my formatting of the list. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at both your Draft:List of sauropod species and the List of sauropodomorph type specimens, I don't think it will work this way. These two lists are almost completely redundant. The type specimen number is included in the species list, which already allows for sorting by collection. The only thing that the type specimens list provides in addition is the material. However, I question if this information really belongs into a list – because it is not sortable and tends to become quite wordy. This is better dealt with in the respective article following WP:Summary style. I mean, by the same token, we could have autapomorphies listed in the species list – which are arguably relevant. But again, this kind of information does simply not belong into a list in my opinion. One of these lists would be totally enough (and I do prefer the species list), but not both. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to focus on expanding my draft, then. I'm neither going to fight to keep the specimen list, nor actively promote its deletion. Perhaps it could be made more useful, though, by including some more information specific to the type specimens themselves (such as collection date?). Ornithopsis (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comments on how my draft list is shaping up? I'd like to incorporate higher classification in some way, but I'm not sure what the best way to do so would be. Pinging Carnoferox for thoughts on how I've handled stuff like authority, publication date, and citation of original description, because that seems like his kind of thing. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The citation style of authorships looks to be correct. Publication date is going to be a lot trickier when it comes to recent taxa, given the differences between online and print publication. If the online version is fully-formatted (e.g. assigned volume/issue, pagination) and has a ZooBank registration, then it is an available publication from the earliest date of online publication. If the online version is not formatted and/or has no ZooBank registration, then it is not an available publication and it only becomes so on the date of print publication. As for the references, I think you should convert them to the standard style of a reflist, where all citations in the text are directly linked to full references in a single reference section. You should also just use initials for the first and middle names of authors because it saves a lot of space. If you want an example, look at the Coloradisaurus article that I edited. Carnoferox (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Some more thoughts:

• How do you want to source this, what is your plan?
• The authority might be interesting to have in a separate column (so that you can sort to see, e.g., all species described by Marsh).
• If space is an issue, than "Notes" does not seem necessary to me; this is not sortable and is wordy, the article in question usually does a better job and is just one click away. Or keep the info here at an absolute minimum for status information only (see below). I don't feel strongly about this though.
• I would remove the "[Original description]" links, and simply place an inline citation behind the year.
• Taxonomic status: I think there might be an WP:Synth issue here; when a single paper considers something valid, that does not mean that this is the consensus (or that a consensus even exists). Maybe remove this column and put the info in the "Notes" field, but only for those cases where consensus is clear (and remove the "valid" altogether)?
• I'm not sure about the country flags; when all information is present, the page may be full of these flags, they distract and don't add much. They may also emphasise nationality when this is absolutely irrelevant for the species themselves. But this is personal taste of course.
• Instead of, e.g., "Middle Jurassic", write "Jurassic, Middle" to allow sorting?
• I would consistently abbreviate with et al. or "and colleagues" when there are more than two authors; this is the standard in the literature as well, and simply saves space. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So far my thoughts – all subjective, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

When you are citing an authorship, the surnames of all the authors should be listed. When you are just citing a reference, then "et al." can be used. For example, if you were citing the authorship of Shunosaurus it would be "Dong, Zhou, & Zhang, 1983". If you were citing the description paper as a reference for another purpose, it would be "Dong et al. (1983)" or "(Dong et al., 1983)". Carnoferox (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Is that standard practice? I find it hard to believe, for example, that Homo naledi is supposed to be cited with the names of all 40+ authors. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is standard practice. For extreme cases like Homo naledi you'd be safe just using et al., but I can't think of any such examples for sauropods. Carnoferox (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses.

Re: Carnoferox:

• Publication date: Yeah, it might be tricky in places, but I think trying to give the exact publication date whenever practical is worth it. Anecdotally, I can attest that it seems to be a piece of information people would find interesting.
• References: I have a personal preference for the citation style I am currently using, as it allows for the works cited list to be in alphabetical order and makes it easy to cite a specific page when necessary. I don't see any particular reason to prefer the other format.
• Author initials: I'm importing references from Zotero and fixing anything that causes a cite error; I don't see initialized author first names as an improvement worth the additional effort of changing it.

The problem is that you have a mixture of full names and initials, it is not consistent. This is a minor problem, but it will be a no-go if this should ever be nominated at Featured Lists, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: Jens

• Sources: I had the list ready to go, so it seemed easiest to just copy it over and fill in the sources while still in draft state. For many species, simply containing a reference to the original description ought to be sufficient; other sources can be added as needed.

I mean, all information need to be sourced, and it need to be very clear what is sourced by what. Do you plan to add a note that "all information, until noted otherwise, is sourced to the respective original description", or do you want to add inline citation to each single field? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Authority column: This was my original plan, but in the interests of not overwhelming the table with too many columns, I decided to place the authority with the species name. Because of multi-author papers, gaining useful information by sorting the authority column would be challenging for most recent authors.

Only first author really matters, though. Sorting by first author would be a great feature in my opinion. But just a suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jens, being able to sort by first author would be a beneficial feature, especially for older names. IJR

• I think a "notes" column is useful; it allows a place to put important information that doesn't readily fit in other columns. Perhaps I've become a bit overeager in adding information to a few entries, though.

Notes should be reduced to barebones at most, like "Originally Ischyrosaurus (preoccupied)". IJR

• I think my "original description" links are clearer in purpose than a simple footnote or inline citation would be, and allow for that information—which I think is very important and useful—to be readily accessible in a way that doesn't take up a full column. It's worth taking note that the original citation is not necessarily the exact same as the authority + publication date: for instance, Malarguesaurus was named in 2008 but the paper naming it was dated 2009, and Omeisaurus luoquanensis is credited only to Li, despite being named in a paper written by He, Li, and Cai. Perhaps I'd consider putting it as an inline citation in the publication date column, though, if that's what you're suggesting?

No, it seems to me that Li is indeed the only author of the paper naming Omeisaurus luoquanensis; He, Li, and Cai are editors of the edited volume that paper appears in. But there are cases where not all authors of a paper are authors of the taxon, e.g. in Europasaurus (it is Mateus et al., not Sander). Regarding the "original description" links, I simply perceived them as unnecessary clutter, and I thought that a single inline citation instead (e.g., "Li in He, Li, and Cai, 1988[1]") would be clear enough, saves space, and be less redundant. I don't see why it matters that the publication date might be different, and shouldn't we go with publication day for all dates anyways? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Taxonomic status: As this list contains valid species, junior synonyms, and nomina dubina alike, I think that the taxonomic status column is of vital importance, and if we can't have it, we might as well not have the list at all. I don't see it as having serious SYNTH problems; if there is enough of a dispute in the literature for determining the right status to list in that column to actually cause problems, then we should note that in the column! I think it's important for this column to be sortable, so that someone can see all the valid taxa (or dubious taxa, or synonyms) in one place.

If the source doesn't explicitly state that something is "valid", then making this inference is WP:Synth? And just because a single study treats a taxon as valid or invalid does not necessarily mean that other studies treat it as such as well? For citing a consensus, we would either need several primary sources, or a secondary source. I don't want to be a nuisance but such arguments will come up eventually and I think they need to be discussed as early as possible, to have the right arguments in place when it matters, also to save your work long-term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

While displaying validity is something thats probably important, combining references is not a good idea. Perhaps as a compromise everything pre-2004 is following The Dinosauria and only that source, and post-2004 is cited individually? IJR

• Country flags: I just think they're neat. I'm not strongly committed to anything about the time, stratigraphy, or place columns, though.

To me, it makes the list look a bit too playful and unscientific; I can't help comparing it to a list of international soccer players. But again, purely subjective. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no strong stance on the flags themselves, but I think the countries list should stay. IJR

• The "Middle Jurassic" is in fact the full name of a particular epoch. Though it does indeed encompass the middle part of the Jurassic period, it is not simply a short way of saying "the middle part of the Jurassic period". As such, "Jurassic, Middle" is a bad idea, IMO. Finer details of getting the sorting to work right should perhaps be handled with sort keys.

I don't see it: If you want the informal name, "Middle" is not capitalised: "middle Jurassic" means "in the middle of the Jurassic". "Late Jurassic" and "Jurassic, Late" should both be formal and equivalent. But if you have other means to fix the sorting function, that is good as well, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no real issue with listing as Jurassic, Middle or Jurassic, Upper in order to make searching, without including sortkeys, possible. Additional css code is not something that makes future revisions by other editors easy or forgiving, so I'd recommend against it. IJR

• In addition to what Carnoferox said, the other reason to list all the authors for a given taxon is to make it easier to find all the taxa named by a given author (which, as I explained above, is impractical via sorting). For instance, saying Jobaria was named by Sereno et al. would obscure the fact that one of its authors was noteworthy sauropod expert Jeff Wilson, which someone might be interested in finding (in this case, via ctrl-f).

I agree that is is technically correct to add all authors. I'm just worry about clutter in a general encyclopedia, but being correct is more important. Shouldn't we list all authors in our article taxonboxes as well, then? Typically they are abbreviated with "et al." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Given we are consistently getting 10+ author papers now, I would say the difference can be split at when there are more than three authors, which is a convention I've seen in some citation formats like IEEE. IJR

• Classification column: This is probably the most difficult column for me with regards to Synth or Undue, since every paper could have a different classification. There's really three options here: removal, citing the original description, or citing The Dinosauria wherever possible and original descriptions elsewhere. Each has their issues: completeness, older names being Crocodilia, and The Dinosauria being almost two decades old now. As it is now, including the entire classification breakdown is the singly most significant factor in the length of rows, which should be minimized. IJR
• Skeletal diagrams: While I like the concept, I would say restorations are more universally interesting, and can be shown smaller so the table doesn't break past page width. But even then the column isn't very important to the purpose of the list, and should only be added if theres both the page space and agreement. IJR
• Stratigraphy: Given the volatility of some taxa when it comes to stratigraphy (south america can be especially bad for this), I would suggest this column is filled exclusively by either original descriptions or The Dinosauria. IJR
• I would say there should be some indication of original genus designation, more than just parentheses around authorities, which not everyone will understand. This works for situations like Haestasaurus, Ornithopsis manesli, etc. IJR

I hope that's clarified my reasoning for some of these things! Ornithopsis (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

See above for further reasoning from my side, but again, these are only my personal, subjective opinions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added some comments above, both in response and of my own identification. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In the interest of not letting this get too sprawling, I am consolidating my responses:

• Authority/original citation: I will be reinstating separate columns for author and citation of original description. If we're going to have a separate column for authors, I especially think we should list all authors, rather than an et al.
• Taxonomic status: Are you suggesting that we cite The Dinosauria for all pre-2004 taxa, regardless of whether the taxonomic assignment has been revised since? Should we list Brontosaurus excelsus as a species of Apatosaurus and Elosaurus parvus as a junior synonym thereof, for instance? I think that this is a column we can fill out based on common sense and the editorial process. If there's enough uncertainty in the literature for there to be a meaningful debate over what status to put in the list entry, we should probably say so in the entry!
• Age sorting: Remember, the ages of a given epoch are not in alphabetical order. Without sort keys, a Maastrichtian taxon would be placed between Cenomanian and Turonian taxa. A sort key really is the best way to make the age of the taxon usefully sortable—unless we want all ~100 sauropods of the 45 million years of the Early Cretaceous to be a single unorganized mass.
• Classification: The classification column is a work in progress; I think it's important information to have but I don't know how best to do it. I'm not happy with the current setup but I don't know how to improve it without losing sortability and information. Regarding synth and due weight: I don't see how this is any different from taxoboxes.
• Skeletal diagrams: I strongly believe rigorous skeletals are the best way to illustrate the list: it shows the anatomy of each taxon in a readily comparable format, it shows what fossils are actually known for the species, and most of the skeletals serve as scale diagrams as well. It's a lot of information that can be packed into a single image. Reconstructions might look nice, but are more speculative, contain significantly less information, and would generally make it harder to make an at-a-glance comparison between two entries. Anecdotally, I can attest that I've shown some non-editor friends the draft and they've said that the inclusion of skeletal diagrams is one of their favorite parts.
• Original genus designation: That's one of the main things the notes column is for, as a piece of information that's only relevant for some taxa. I don't see any need for that information to be added anywhere else.

Remember, this is still a draft with a lot of work to go, so I'm still trying to work out some of the details of organization. I certainly plan to have all information adequately cited by the end of it. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally would remove the "Classification" column. To me, a list seems to be ill-suited for this kind of information. And why replicate it here – we already have taxonboxes, navigation boxes, and categories which all have the same functionality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to be able to sort the list so that closely-related species are close together. Being able to view the list in taxonomic order seems like one of the major functions someone would expect a list of species to have, in my opinion. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and it turns out that Jens is right: Recommendation 51C states that "et al." can be used in author citations. However, for the column in the table that lists the authors, I want to keep the whole list of authors in place, not use "et al.", as it is a list of authors, not a citation, and I think a complete list of authors is valuable information to put in the list. The entries for a handful of taxa, such as Brachiosaurus altithorax and Ornithopsis hulkei, are more or less done—what do people think of them now? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to hear feedback on the two possible classification columns I have ("parent clade" and "classification"). The "parent clade" column uses sort keys to sort into a phylogenetic order. Also, I'm not sure if we need both the "stratigraphy" and "country" columns, and am considering deleting the "stratigraphy" column. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think using the smallest parent clade is a good alternative to including the full classification, which poses a space problem. I also think you could merge stratigraphy and country into a single "provenance" column. Carnoferox (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As you can see, I've trimmed the list columns somewhat and I'm only using the smallest parent clade column for classification now. I currently have a single columm for location (titled "location") that currently lists only country. I decided against listing formation, because that information is sometimes hard to give consistently (e.g. taxa known from multiple formations, taxa from unnamed strata, taxa from ambiguous strata) and not terribly informative in most cases for non-specialists. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Chicxulub crater

User:Hemiauchenia has nominated Chicxulub crater for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that additional feedback would be great (the FAR currently has limited participation.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting of Tyrannosaurus rex

There's a big splash in the press about a new paper by Gregory S. Paul that splits Tyrannosaurus into three new species based on morphological grounds, primarily the proportions of the femur and the presence/absence of teeth. The paper link [5] is currently broken now online the paper is paywalled but this nytimes piece gives the jist of it. Major tyrannosaur workers like Carr have come out against the proposal, saying that the differences are continuous rather than discreet. I suggest that we maybe mention this in a single line in the taxonomy section, but there's no reason to alter the taxobox or the lead to mention this unless this becomes accepted in subsequent papers. I thought this was worth creating a thread for as there is potential for drive-by disruption by editors not experienced with the topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Putting it in the taxobox would be a clear violation of due weight, IMO, given how much skepticism has been expressed by experts quoted in news articles. Also, Paul et al. refer the holotype of Dinotyrannus megagracilis to Tyrannosaurus regina, and Thomas Holtz has been quoted as saying T. imperator would probably be a junior synonym of T. lancensis, so even if the proposed split was valid, the names probably would not be the same as proposed here. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They paradoxically call the D. megagracilis holotype dubious in the supplementary material so it seems it's not actually confidently referable to T. regina. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's probably best to acknowledge them in the text in much the same way as the synonyms of "Nanotyrannus" are, but exclude from taxonbox (perhaps add a note of see text) until we have more information. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Names that already have such a massive backlash against them should not be taken as fact here, but we can of course make redirects and mention them in the text (briefly), while mentioning the critique. They're validly published names after all, so at the least they'll end up as junior synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting situation. Greg Paul is somewhat notorious for his taxonomic views, so perhaps this was to be expected. Further reinforcing the ideas mentioned here is this statement from the paper: "It is . . . expected that colleagues across the splitter/lumper continuum will opt to use or reject the proposed species in accordance with their own standards and evidentiary perspectives; however, it is our hope that the three Tyrannosaurus morphotypes recognized by this study (I, II, and III) will be of universal value, as a means for framing and focusing future inquiry into the multiple species question." As such, it would probably be of value to the page to include some information about the different "morphotypes" that Paul has suggested, and how different specimens of the genus show at least some degree of variability. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Strangely, T. imperator was already made a redirect back in 2010[6], anyone knows what's up with that? FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently it's a nomen nudum for Peck's Reck MOR 980, from a 1998 Prehistoric Times article. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ankylosaurus

It seems there might be an edit war brewing over at the Ankylosaurus article. Perhaps it would be best if some intervention was made? Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything useful in the IP's additions? FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Alaskan troodontid article

An article called Alaskan troodontid, about an undescribed specimen from the Prince Creek Formation, was recently created, which may pose some problems. First of all, we should preferably keep undescribed taxa on the list of informally named dinosaurs, but the name itself also seems to be made up, and isn't used in the literature, so it can hardly even be said to have an informal name we can list it under. I've tagged it for merging, but the creators have protested this, and now it's even nominated for DYK. More than half the article combined is just pop culture references and description of its environment, so it is is far from too long for the list if we only keep the useful information. What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a due violation of policy and might even fall under WP:OR. I would protest any DYK and emphasize the need for merging. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added my thoughts TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you know which paper this is based on? If it is this one [7], then it should be merged with Troodon. If this article is kept, I think it has to be under the specimen number, and be about the specimen (not a possible species). Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably refers to the same taxon, and it is actually already covered in the Troodon article. So I agree, it should not have been split to begin with, if no one has even suggested it is a new taxon yet. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a lot of cruft. I also think it should go to Troodon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the entire depictions in media section as OR/SYNTH, and IMO the size section is about as bad. Would Alaska even have been a polar climate during the Cretaceous? The Cretaceous climate is thought to have been significantly warmer, even at the poles: no ice caps, and there were polar rainforests. But the size section is going on about modern-day polar gigantism and comparing the specimen to polar bears (or did, until I removed that bit). SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for removing, even though the article is probably going to be gone in a few days anyways. Alaska would be within the paleo-arctic circle, so the climate would indeed be quite cold, especially in winter. Size section didn't make sense either, so thanks for removing that too. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

URFA/2020 needs your help!

WP:URFA/2020 is a working group dedicated to reviewing and improving featured articles that were promoted before 2016. This year, URFA/2020 wants to finish reviewing all articles promoted from 2004-2006. This is where we need your help.

We need dinosaur specialists like you to look at these articles and either document that they meet the featured article criteria, improve them until they meet the criteria or document concerns on the article's talk page. Subject matter experts are especially important because they know if the prose includes all necessary information, the sources are high-quality, and if there are any other concerns that an unfamiliar editor would not know to look for.

Below is a list of articles that fall under WikiProject Dinosaurs's purview. If you believe the article meets the featured article criteria, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020A. If you are working on the article, please mark it as "Working", and if you leave notes on the talk page, please mark it with "Notes" and a link to the diff. More detailed instructions can be found at WP:URFA/2020.

Here is the list of articles under this project's purview that were promoted or last reviewed in 2004-2006:

• Dinosaur (Notes have been left on the talk page)
• Albertosaurus
• Velociraptor
• Stegosaurus

Thanks in advance for your help. Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

We’ll see to it! Thank you for letting us know. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Collaboration on Confuciusornis

Do you guys think it's finally time to nominate it for GA? I know I haven't been here long, but I cleaned it up a bit and checked it against the criteria for GA status. Its been the collaboration for years now; it should be good. (also posted at Confuciusornis talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asparagusus (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The collaboration has been bugging me for a while, and it seems like it isn't really working all too well. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

In general, expansion of palaeo articles have diminished in recent times, so I think it's a wider issue, not just about the collab. Perhaps related to general stress worldwide the last few years, who knows... And the main editors are busy with real life stuff. As for Confuciusornis, it's not finished expanding yet, so a nomination would be premature. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

New Spinosaurid study, but for Halszkaraptor

New study about osteology of Spinosaurid is released,[8] and thanks to the edits by @Saberrex-Strongheart:, links are added to three pages, Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, Baryonyx, although that reference is just only link and should be fixed. Anyway, there are another interesting results shown in this study. This study shows that halszkaraptorine dromaeosaurids have open medullary cavities and a weak or absent probability of subaqueous foraging. In figure 2, "Median probability for being predicted as subaqueous forager" for Halszkaraptor is considered as "Very unlikely". Most of all, this doesn't completely deny that it was aquatic, but is that information worth adding? I am not good at halszkaraptorine, so I want to let someone for decision. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually there is another paper from 2019 that questions aquatic adaption of Halszkaraptor.[9] It is a bit strange that article doesn't refer this although that refers Cau's newer paper from 2020. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, @Saberrex-Strongheart: still continues to add bare references, especially in Amargasaurus and Bajadasaurus. Apparently they're been adding bare references since 2019, it doesn't seem to change yet... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is also adding pop science reports instead of the actual scientific papers. I've explained both issues to them in edit summaries, but they don't seem to take notice. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discord Server Crosspost

See discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Discord_Server as it is highly relevant to this WikiProject. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for crossposting TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Rauhut wikipedia page?

I think Rauhut is a notable enough paleontologist to have his own wikipedia page--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The question isn't whether you think he's notable, the question is whether there are enough reliable sources to base a page on. Can you point to some reliable sources about Rauhut? Ornithopsis (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

http://www.mesozoic-vertebrates.org/oliverrauhut.html, https://www.en.palaeontologie.geowissenschaften.uni-muenchen.de/personen/lecturers/rauhut/index.html, https://www.palass.org/publications/palaeontology-journal/archive/46/5/article_pp903-910, https://www.palass.org/publications/palaeontology-journal/archive/48/1/article_pp87-110, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308297143_A_new_megalosaurid_theropod_dinosaur_from_the_late_Middle_Jurassic_Callovian_of_north-western_Germany_Implications_for_theropod_evolution_and_faunal_turnover_in_the_Jurassic, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406838/--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that only the first link is of value, the second has practically no information, the last straight up tells me the page is unavailable and all the others are publications of his, not about him. The problem is that for a wikipedia page you need reliable sources with biographical information, not just a list of his works. Armin Reindl (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.br.de/fernsehen/ard-alpha/sendungen/campus/talks/campus-talks-rauhut-saurier-100.html Would this count?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

https://freunde-bspg.de/2019/05/geschluepft-um-zu-toeten-raubdinosaurier-neu-erforscht/ And this?

And even this https://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/panorama/neuer-dino-entdeckt-vorfahre-der-beruehmten-langhalssaurier-art-553672--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The answer is no, not until you find significant news coverage about Rauhut himself and not his research. A body of research work does not necessarily make a researcher notable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I literly just showed you some news coverage of him--Bubblesorg (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

These are talks and paper press releases. It doesn't mean anything. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here are the guidelines on notability of academics: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). For what it's worth, I don't think the threshold is met here. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Rauhut has done good work, but following these guidelines indeed shows that he is a step below Holtz, Naish, and others in notability. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Something to remember about notability guidelines is that they are not primarily a measure of how important, or worthy of respect, a person is. They're about the quality of sources, because it is only with high-quality sources that it is possible for us to make high-quality articles. Only one of those sources appears to provide a significant amount of biographic information on Rauhut, and it was written by Rauhut himself. I think it should be obvious why Wikipedia policy is opposed to relying exclusively on autobiographic sources. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:synth in cladograms

After a discussion at Dinosauromorpha, where I noticed a cladogram mixed terminology from different studies in a single cladogram (using the name Dacohors in a cladogram wherein the name is not mentioned), and seeing the likewise WP:synthy cladogram at Saltasaurinae, also mixing findings of two different studies, I think we need to discuss this issue and decide whether we should "outlaw" the practice outright in our guidelines. Perhaps some people have arguments in favour, but as far as I can tell, it it a very dubious practice. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• This practice is found far beyond dinosaur articles and I share FunkMonk's reservations. Where the source uses a synonym that is not used in the article and the synonym is referenced elsewhere in the article with a source that makes it clear that the application is the same, I can see a case for changing a name. But the practice of merging cladograms from different sources is, in my view, indisputably WP:SYNTH and is thus forbidden. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm sure it happens elsewhere too. If we can get agreement, it should perhaps even be a WP:TOL guideline? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• In my opinion, we never should add clade names not mentioned in the respective source. Clade names are often not universally accepted. In the Dinosauromorpha article, the Dracohors are not only unsourced, but are also a misrepresentation of the published literature. Mixing cladograms from different studies is even worse, and just don't work: The topology changes if we add additional taxa, so we are unlikely to get that cladogram in the first place if we would re-run the analysis. This is clearly WP:OR. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I was thinking of cases where species are shown with synonyms that have changed, and there are clear sources for the synonymy. Most clade names are a different matter, I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that a cladogram, when imported to Wikipedia, is close to a quotation: The reader simply expects that the very same cladogram is found in the source. If we need to change something (e.g., species synonyms that you pointed out), we might want to make this change known to the reader (maybe giving the name used by the source first, and then add a note to that "(now taxon x[source]"). Also, if we reduce complexity by leaving something out (e.g., hiding species nodes for clades that are not the focus of the article), I would always add a note like "Cladogram, simplified after [source]" to indicate this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm also thinking they should be left as they are, since they reflect the view of the time they were made. For example, I recently added some cladograms to the Seychelles parakeet article, where the genus name Psittacula is used for it and its relatives. It has recently been suggested these species should be moved into various other genera, and it appears this has been accepted by the IUCN and other authorities, so the Seychelles parakeet will soon be moved into the genus Palaeornis instead of Psittacula. So should we change the name in the cladogram too when that happens? I think that would be misleading, even though the reader would clearly know what it referred to. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  One comment I do have though. For the rare situation of Madzia ea 2021, where they directly state what cladogram and where a clade name applies, I think we can include it, since its synth from published literature, and not our own ideas. Otherwise I agree that clades should not be included unless labelled or defined by the paper in question we cite. I've considered the label-cladogram combining to be synth for some time now, but it was used across a fairly large variety of pages at some points so I overlooked it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but we should make clear that, for example, the cladogram is from a 2018 study but modified by a 2021 study. Not sure if such modification is always desirable; we loose the historic aspect pointed out by FunkMonk, and we possibly introduce bias (maybe Madzia et al. endorse clade names that the original 2018 authors are not endorsing). On the other hand, adding additional clade names can in some cases help the reader with understanding, especially when these names are discussed in the text. So I think it may depend on the particular article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a great discussion! I've always wondered a bit about this subject. Over time I have been working to better comply with this rule. So my question is - how about the second cladogram I created on the Gryposuchinae page? In the cladogram itself, I use all clade names from the source. But then to the right in green, I identify the traditionally considered members of Gryposuchinae as a way to show how they are paraphyletic in this study. Now, the study itself does specifically mention this - how Gryposuchinae as it was previously considered is now recovered as paraphyletic. But the green I added to the right of the cladogram is not exactly in the original cladogram in the study. So is my addition ok? Or not ok? Cougroyalty (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would say such annotations are fine. In the text above the cladogram, you could write something like "Cladogram by Rio and Mannion, 2021, with traditional Gryposuchinae highlighted based on [source]" to be fully clear about this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 *I made a section about it at TOL[10] , as the issue just came up again at the red panda FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that modifying cladograms is SYNTH. SYNTH, in a nutshell, is the combination of claims made in separate sources to reach a new claim not present in the original sources. As long as the cladogram does not imply any classification or phylogenetic relationships that is not adequately supported by cited sources, it is not SYNTH. I think a cladogram should be viewed more like text: it should be considered appropriate to summarize studies, and to combine them in a way that does not produce new conclusions. Moreover, I argue that this is preferable to dizzying the reader with an array of sprawling cladograms. However, treating cladograms like text would imply that any cladogram that is not a direct "quotation" must follow another principle, that of due weight. As such, any summary cladogram would need to be careful to only represent relationships that can be considered to be well-supported by sources, unless they are explicitly captioned as representing a specific hypothesis. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This, you have stated things better than I could. Cladograms are combination of claims but do not make any new claims (or shouldn't, if they do then that is SYTH). SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)