Talk:Alcovasaurus

Invalid name
In view of ICZN Article 8.5.: "Works issued and distributed electronically. To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must (...) 8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred", this is not a valid name. Perhaps it is best to rename the article to Stegosaurus longispinus?--MWAK (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your idea, until further more information about the status of "Natronasaurus".--Rextron (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have also suggested to make such articles redirects, but it would be a pity if all the careful work done by Extrapolaris would be lost. Under the WP:Summary Style policy the existence of articles for separate species is fully justified. Before acting, I feel we should wait for the reaction of Extrapolaris.--MWAK (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to rename this article to Stegosaurus longispinus. As a matter of fact, Ulansky (2014) has published another paper giving a comprehensive overview of how Natronasaurus compares to other stegosaurs, not just Stegosaurus and Hesperosaurus, so all we can say is that Ulansky set up Dinologia as a private publishing house and publishes his papers both in print and online. Therefore, Dinologia may be thought of as the Russian equivalent of George Olshevsky's private publishing house Mesozoic Meanderings.
 * Ulansky, R. E., 2014. Natronasaurus longispinus, 100 years with another name. Dinologia, 10 pp. [In Russian]. [DOWNLOAD PDF].72.194.115.252 (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian


 * Yes, but Olshevsky produced a print run. As I understand matters, the articles by Ulansky were never made public in any physical form but are only available on line. Since 2012, it is allowed to publish a taxon name this way, but only under the condition, as mentioned above, that the publication is registered, beforehand, in the Zoobank. This didn't happen and the name is thus a nomen non rite publicatum. If this situation persists the name will never receive any recognition from the scientific community and remain a curiosity. It is then strongly preferable to change the article title into a designation which is both valid and used in the literature.--MWAK (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I discussed this matter with Roman Ulansky and he has registered his publication at Zoobank (http://zoobank.org/References/9D1A869B-87B4-4940-A926-94E454406DEA; http://zoobank.org/Authors/05902986-3B49-488C-AB29-2F76BA8DE2A7). That should tidy the situation, making Natronasaurus technically valid.72.194.115.252 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian


 * Well, things are a bit more complex. With the "work issued and distributed electronically" the individual article is meant. So each time an article is published it has to be registered individually. It does not suffice to register just the periodical (though a commendable step) and forever be done with it, so to say. Also, the intention of the system is that the nomenclatural acts would be separately registered. The publication/name then gets a Life Science Identifier. Also, this must be arranged before the publication, which should then mention the LSID. That is the "evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred" referred to above. So, for each name a LSID must be obtained and the, or a, article must be published mentioning the LSIDs. This way these names can be made valid. Admittedly, this isn't easy but it wasn't meant to be easy. It was meant to discourage publishing outside of the established channels :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The names are now apparently valid now, as the article now lists all the LSID's at the front.  IJReid (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I predict that many will see the "fixed content" condition of article 8.1.3 as a reason to reject the validity — the articles have not been properly archived. However, as this will no doubt be contentious, under our NPOV policy they are valid enough to keep the article titles ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the article is improperly archived? The article you mention cites pdf format specifically as an example of a proper fixed-format archive. If all LSID requirements are met, then this paper should technically meet those requirements. (EDIT: Oh I see, he edited the pdf of the ORIGINAL article? That may not fly after all...) Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The new rules of 2012 took it for granted that "fixed content" meant that some other organisation than the author himself would archive the record. So the "Ulansky hard-disc" would not suffice :o). Now this has been made explicit. See below.--MWAK (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing page title
The title of this page should be changed to Alcovasaurus because Galton and Carpenter (2016) don't consider Natronasaurus a nomenclaturally valid genus, saying that it doesn't meet ICZN requirements. Do you agree with my proposal? Extrapolaris (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian


 * Indeed the requirements of the ICZN have ex tunc been tightened, partly because of these events, and all Ulansky names are now invalid as nomina non rite publicata. I agree that Natronasaurus should be replaced by Alcovasaurus as the correct article name.--MWAK (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where was this done? I just checked the ICZN code online and there is no mention of self-published works being excluded. All it says of electronic names in particular is that they require registration in ZooBank, which Ulansky has done, apparently at the prompting of some editors here! Galton and Carpenter make no mention of any retroactive action on the part of the ICZN, they just argue, incorrectly, that the ICZN does not recognize self-publication and that ZooBank doesn't count(?). Can you provide a source for this? Based on the reading of the amendments to code chapter 3 compared to the struck-through older version, if anything they have loosened criteria for online publication to basically "as long as it's a pdf, and it's in ZooBank it counts". Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking now at little more closely, ICZN article 8.5.3 says published electronic works must "be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred." The fact that Ulansky apparently only registered the name in ZooBank AFTER publication may make the names invalid unless he noted ZooBank registration in a later publication...? Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the relevant new article is: 8.5.3.1. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give the name and Internet address of an organization other than the publisher that is intended to permanently archive the work in a manner that preserves the content and layout, and is capable of doing so. This information is not required to appear in the work itself. This wasn't there when I, ah, prompted ;o). Ulansky indeed noted the registration in a later version. Such a version counts as a new publication.


 * In my haste to rename our article, I didn't check whether Ulansky has renewed his entry — and I still have not done that. Also, not having had access to their article I assumed Galton and Carpenter applied the correct rules. They might well have done so if "self-archiving" is subsumed under "self-publishing".--MWAK (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been kindly provided with the article. Galton & Carpenter do not claim that self-publishing results in invalid names but correctly refer to 8.5.3.1. Also they consider the names as nomina dubia or junior synonyms, and, implicitly, as nomina nuda.--MWAK (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * " I assumed Galton and Carpenter applied the correct rules" Well, they cite a bunch of irrelevant rules and don't seem to know the difference between a numen nudum and nomen dubium, so I'm not as confident... Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, most of the Ulansky names are arguably nomina dubia, but that is a matter of science, not nomenclature. It is debatable whether they are nomina nuda. In any case, they are nomina non rite publicata.--MWAK (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

New restoration needed
Galton and Carpenter, in the paper, reject the Kentrosaurus-like skeletal restoration as proposed by Olshevsky & Ford, 1993 and Ulanksy, 2014 (which is evidently the basis for the current restoration). Instead, they provide a reconstruction more similar to Stegosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a very good point. The existing image is of course very useful for showing the "Olshevsky & Ford (1993) - interpretation" and should not be replaced, either in the article or in Commons. However, it is out of place in the taxobox. Hopefully, someone will at some point in the future make an improved image available.--MWAK (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)