Talk:Fendusaurus

Status
This is a dissertation name, which doesn't count as a formal publication. J. Spencer (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. The article the name was "published" in clearly mentions it, provides features unique to it as far as I can tell, and assigns a holotype. What other things would need to be mentioned in the article, or be found in it, for the name to be "valid"? IJReid (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for various reasons, dissertations and theses don't count as publications under the ICZN, nor do electronic-only journal articles (which is why we have names that people use as valid but which have only appeared in online preprints and thus technically do not count). However, apparently self-published unreviewed works distributed in hard copies to fifty of your closest friends can count. J. Spencer (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Electronic publication is allowed under the ICZN from January 2012 onward and most electronic-only journals prior to that point actually had rarely-accessed print and optical disc (only allowed from 1985 to 2012, optical disks could be deposited in five publicly accessible libraries to fulfill the requirement for publication) options to fulfill the former ICZN requirements for publication, so most of those names are not problematic. Electronic publication starting in 2012 requires registration of the name with ZooBank, the electronic publication to have fixed content and layout, and to have an ISBN or ISSN number. Advance and early-access online preprints of articles explicitly do not count as published, the official date of publication of an article is also the official date of publication of the name. Also, an electronic work needs to have been originally intended for publication, a facsimile of a work that was not initially intended for publication such as a thesis, dissertation, or other type of manuscript, cannot count as published, even it it meets the other criteria for publication. Article 9.12 is actually fairly explicit that a name in a thesis cannot count as published for nomenclatural purposes even if the thesis otherwise meets criteria for being considered a published work. In the case here, the document in question was clearly intended as a doctoral dissertation, so despite being archived and widely accessible in a fixed form, archived, and having an ISBN number, it cannot count as published since it is a published facsimile of what was originally an intentionally unpublished document (a PhD dissertation), and even if it were not a thesis, as an electronic publication it doesn't register the nomenclatural act with ZooBank, and was made available in electronic form in 2007 with no statement that paper or optical disc copies were deposited in multiple libraries (a quick library search indicated that the only paper copy of the work is held at Dalhousie University, and no records of optical discs of it exist, which is insufficient for publication). All that taken into account, this genus and species should be regarded as an unpublished manuscript name. --130.132.173.91 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fendusaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308080906/http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/22224/MARSH-THESIS-2013.pdf?sequence=1 to http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/22224/MARSH-THESIS-2013.pdf?sequence=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)