Talk:Troodontidae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
[edit] Bullatosauria
Anyone feel like starting a Bullatosauria article? The red link to it in this article looks a bit like a sore thumb. Alternatively, is it OK to copy over from evowiki [1]? - Ballista 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd do it, but I fear I don't have the intel. Nobody wants to create articles more than me, but I usually only know a bit about genus, not families etc. Sorry, but if you could supply me with a site or source, I'd be glad to help you. Thanks. Spawn Man 06:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure such an article would be useful. Bullatosauria has been out of use for about ten years, and even Tom Holtz, who created the group in the first place as a subset of the old-school version of Arctometatarsalia, repeatedly stresses that he was mistaken and that tyrannosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, and especially troodontids, are not closely related. The evo wiki article doesn't seem to clarify the fact that this group has been abandoned by (as far as I know) all paleontologists including its author.Dinoguy2 15:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for usual reliable clarification. However, I feel a very small page might be useful, in case punters require info. I might get around to one, soon (in view of its now-revealed simplicity!). - Ballista 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "EK troodontid"
I know this is sometimes what it's called in the lit, but really? As nicknames go, it's more than misleading. Many troodontids are EK. I can maybe see LJ troodontid for "Lori", but... Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree it's a terrible working name, but here's the thing. It is the name researchers have used in at least six papers I've read. I've been reading "EK troodontid" in papers going back years, but there was never any clear identification of what the "EK troodontid" is. All the other google hits for it are similarly vague. I wish this article had been there for me years ago. I was proud to go get the monograph, prove that SPS 100/44 it is definitely what Makovicky et al. call "EK troodontid", and then put that in wikipedia as the first unambiguous identification of it on the web.Jbrougham (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, of course, it's just very confusing when used as a label with no supporting explanation (as Mackovicky did, and we're doing in the taxonomy section). Is Barsbold still active in paleo? Haven't heard much from him in a while, and a lot of his stuff really needs to get named or re-named already... (EK troodont, "Ingenia", etc.) Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it's a terrible working name, but here's the thing. It is the name researchers have used in at least six papers I've read. I've been reading "EK troodontid" in papers going back years, but there was never any clear identification of what the "EK troodontid" is. All the other google hits for it are similarly vague. I wish this article had been there for me years ago. I was proud to go get the monograph, prove that SPS 100/44 it is definitely what Makovicky et al. call "EK troodontid", and then put that in wikipedia as the first unambiguous identification of it on the web.Jbrougham (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
