Talk:Eoplophysis

Merger Proposal
None of the dinosaur taxa named by Roman Ulansky are valid according to Galton & Carpenter (2016). They were “published” in Ulansky’s “journal” Dinologia, a non-peer-reviewed collection of pdf’s on his personal website where he is the sole author. Suffice to say Dinologia does not meet the ICZN requirements for a valid publication and thus all of these names are nomina nuda. I propose that all of the remaining Ulansky taxa pages should be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_informally_named_dinosaurs.

Reference: Galton, P.M., & Carpenter, K. (2016). The plated dinosaur Stegosaurus longispinus Gilmore, 1914 (Dinosauria: Ornithischia; Upper Jurassic, western USA), type species of Alcovasaurus n. gen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 279(2), 185-208. Carnoferox (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that the generic names are invalid does not imply that the species taxa names are invalid. This article e.g. can simply be renamed to Dacentrurus vetustus in line with WP:Summary Style. Should a genus be validly named, we already have an article for it. Of course the name Eoplophysis could be added to the list also.--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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 Dacentrurus vetustus?--MWAK (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Roman Ulansky has registered his publication and taxa at Zoobank (http://zoobank.org/Authors/05902986-3B49-488C-AB29-2F76BA8DE2A7), so should make Eoplophysis technically valid.Extrapolaris (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian


 * I don't see a LSID of the naming article or the taxon, just of himself and the periodical. Also, once the LSIDs of the names have been obtained, these must be mentioned in an naming article. Only then the names are valid.--MWAK (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)