Talk:Baryonychinae

This page got messed up during a move--apparently my fault. I've restored it as best I can.  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge from Ceratosuchopsini
Continuation of the Ceratosuchopsini merging discussion. Since a complete consensus wasn't exactly made, we can hold a vote, I guess: (Unless anyone suggests any alternatives) Hiroizmeh (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * Support merge, as I feel the topic can be covered in its entirety here without it feeling unnatural or overly bloated.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merge, while it is technically against policy, the goal of the Wiki Project Dinosaurs is to allow all articles we cover to be able to get at least somewhat close to good article. As we don't have a lot of information for Ceratosuchopsini due to the lack of members and research, it would be more beneficial for Ceratosuchopsini and Baryonychinae to merge Ceratosuchopsini into this article, as covering more information in this one gives a better chance for Baryonychinae to be worth more in value, and by extension the info inside Ceratosuchopsini. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - as I've mentioned elsewhere, only Baryonyx differentiates Ceratosuchopsini from Baryonychinae, so I don't see any practical benefits in a separate article. We will not lose any information by keeping it the same place, and it will be easier to manage and update, instead of having to expand two almost identical articles every time something new comes up. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There's really not much to say about Ceratosuchopsini which has only been named this year, and it is better included for the reader in a single article. At some point there is diminishing returns, and it's best for the reader to cover overlapping topics in a single article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Object:
 * Object merge, as it is against policy. Nothing is gained by removing the article.--MWAK (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you have no understanding of our policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No Merge - are we really complaining that this is “only” a C class article? This is no permanent one-line article, and it is not a monotypic taxon.  I fear for the members of .  Getting a GA is not dependent on how many species are in a clade, it’s about how much of the topic is covered.  If you find it easy to completely cover the topic, then it should be easy to get a GA.  --awkwafaba (📥) 12:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the class is the issue, it is almost complete overlap with another clade article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that clade has for now only a single source, it fails the WP:GNG for significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That is a misunderstanding. "Significant coverage" should not be read as "a lot of coverage". It means that the sources are sufficiently indicative of the importance of a certain subject. Whether that is the case must be decided by its context. In the context of the science of paleontology, a single source may be sufficive to prove that ("be significant of the fact that") a concept is meaningful. The notability standards are there to battle OR and self-promotion. They are emphatically not meant to forbid reflecting the content of peer-reviewed scientific articles. If they are, we would be forced to annihilate most of the project, as most species are only seriously covered by their naming articles, a few silly press reports and their redescription ten years later :o).


 * SilverTiger12 argues "articles on in-between taxa like tribes, etc, aren't considered necessary or automatically notable). Do we even know if Ceratosuchopsini is commonly accepted by paleontologists yet?". To this I would answer: there are no such things as "in-between taxa" as Linnean ranks are unscientific and arbitrary; scientific concepts are best considered notable by default; clades are not accepted, they are defined while their usefulness can be proven by empirical cladistic research.--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * First off, significant coverage does in fact require multiple sources, which the tribe lacks, and your assertion that Linnean ranks are unscientific and arbitrary is your own opinion, not fact and certainly not policy. I use Linnean ranks in my own work perfectly fine. The tribe, as it stands, currently lack significant coverage, being only treated in a single source, and is largely redundant to the subfamily that can more comprehensively deal with the group. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the policy states: multiple sources are generally expected. But this means: "not if it is beyond reasonable doubt that a subject has a sufficient significance, is not OR and will very likely be mentioned in future sources". Species that have just been named qualify. The ranks are not concepts of empirical science because they lack accepted operational definitions. Of course they could be seen as a part of science in a loose sense. The sense in which astrology and countless other belief systems are science too. If the ranks might seem to work perfectly fine, that is because in fact they do not "work" at all: they are meaningless and have no effect. You might as well intersperse your text with little flowers or gnomes. Try replacing the ranks by the terms "group" or "subgroup" and the empirical meaning of the text will not change. They are just an empty show of dysfunctional erudition. Besides, naming them a tribe in this case is OR. The naming article calls them a "CERATOSUCHOPSINI clade nov." :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I will thank you to not insult my work in this field; secondly, clades are not necessarily considered automatically notable, which means that "not if it is beyond reasonable doubt that the subject has a sufficient significance" does not apply. Many, many clades are not deemed notable enough to have their own articles. I call Ceratopsuchsini a tribe because it is in the position (between subfamily and genera) and has the suffix (-ini) of a tribe.
 * At this point, you are verging on uncivil and unreasonable and I am not going to continue to argue with one who will not listen. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the incivility began by claiming MWAK has "no understanding of our policy", I don't think that's really necessary here. Just keep it dry and formal, no need for sniping. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not intend to insult anyone, merely to further undermine, for the sake of science, the Linnean protoscience :o). I would say that any clade named in a peer-reviewed article is best considered notable by default. There could of course be valid reasons not to tolerate an article anyway; in this case I am not aware of any. Perhaps it's true that "Many, many clades are not deemed notable enough to have their own articles" but is this justified? You are of course in your right to call them anything you want; identifying them as a tribe in a Wikipedia article would, however, technically be a forbidden synthesis (not that I'm a purist in these matters, mind you).--MWAK (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support merge, per above, and also because the recently-named Ceratosuchopsini doesn't really qualify for WP:GNG on its own (articles on in-between taxa like tribes, etc, aren't considered necessary or automatically notable). Do we even know if Ceratosuchopsini is commonly accepted by paleontologists yet? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No subsequent papers since September have been done on Spinosaurids (I believe), so it can't be said as of yet. Hiroizmeh (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a note, Hiroizmeh, it is considered highly improper to alter other user's comments in any way, including moving them, and you are rearranging comments into an irregular and mildly confusing arrangement I have never seen elsewhere on WP. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think at least the "supports" and "opposes" should be kept bold, as in all other such votes, makes them easier to count. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Baryonychinae
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Baryonychinae's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Holtz": From Gallimimus:  From Podokesaurus:  From Genusaurus:  From Shanyangosaurus: T. R. Holtz, R. E. Molnar, and P. J. Currie (2004). Basal Tetanurae. In D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, & H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria (second edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 71-110 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Unassigned specimens in cladogram
The new paper doesn't assign various specimens to specific genera in their cladogram, yet they are assigned here, seemingly based on previous studies. The problem with this is that since the new paper doesn't assign them, this amounts to WP:original synthesis, and in fact, the paper makes it clear that similar taxa could be sympatric even if very similar, which is probably why it is cautious. And Darren Naish, one of the coauthors of the paper, has this to say on this blog:

"Some implications for Spinosaurus. On the subject of sympatry and taxonomic distinction… our paper also has relevance for a larger debate, and one considered almost inescapable among those researchers interested in Cretaceous theropods. I’m talking about the intractable mess that is Spinosaurus. As you’ll know if you’ve been following any of the post-2014 claims and counter-claims about north African spinosaurids, inherent to the Ibrahim et al. (2014) idea about Spinosaurus is that all the material in question belongs to the same one taxon.

In the interests of testing this idea, we coded several of the key specimens (including the Sigilmassasaurus holotype and ‘Spinosaurus B’) and included them in a phylogenetic analysis. The result? Well, things are ambiguous: in some versions of our analysis, the north African specimens did group together but the statistical support for this grouping was weak. Basically, it’s by no means clear that the specimens combined to make the chimaeric view of ‘Spinosaurus’ preferred by some authors really do belong to the same clade and same taxon. My personal view remains that the specimens concerned represent three or more taxa." FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)