Talk:Kaganaias

Questions about the article:
I've created the Kaganaias article from a PDF which is mentioned in the article. However, I have a few questions - 1) On the PDF it says Kaganaias has been assigned to Platynota because Sarah Evans did not know which part of Mosasauridae it went into. Is this correct, as I've never been heard of a single genus being assigned to a large group like that, usually families. 2) This brings up another question - This site  says that Platynota is an infraorder, where as other pages on Wikipedia say it is a superfamily. Which is it? 3) And what the heck is Varanoidea? It was in a taxobox right next to Platynota (actually in the text of this article), so I assumed they both meant the same thing? If you'd be able to figure out what's going on, it would be a great help. It would have been better if the PDF had a better systematic paleobiology level thingy... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Would it be possible to leave this tag here until the problem is resolved or someone with biological experience has looked the article over? Cheers, Spawn Man 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is your source a reliable source? Also, this doesn't require a "help me," persay, but is a talk page topic for those who are interested in the topic. However, you should visit the reference desk for general quetions like this. Miranda 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I am an experienced user ya know, so I think I would know if my PDF was reliable... Thansk for the tips though, may be better in a reference desk... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not reliable if you made the PDF. See no original research. Miranda 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * <--Personal Attack Removed--> It's a PDF of the person who actually described Kaganaias - I don't think you could get more scientific than that! And stop linking to pages I've read a million times over my stay of two years here lol! Thanks, Spawn Man 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-read my answers, specifically response one, again and that would help your problem.  isn't supposed to be used to help classify dinosaurs, but answer questions related to navigating Wikipedia or problems with Wikipedia...not it's content. If you have any problems with content, go to WP:VP. Also, be civil. Miranda 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you stop bolding things? I can read ya know. I now know that the template isn't for this particular thing, but it said it was for wikipedians needing help. I was needing help, so my mistake for assuming a template for wikipedians needing help applied to me, a wikipedian needing help. I wasn't making a personal attack, I was asking if you knew english (I deal with a lot of people on here with english as a second language & I was asuming you were one of them as you didn't know basic rules. My mistake & I apologise). Now in regard to your "Re-read my answers, specifically again and that would help your problem" comment - No, I didn't misread your comment thank you very much, but instead you wrote the wrong thing. You said before "It's not reliable. See no original research. Miranda 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)", and later you changed it to "It's not reliable if you made the PDF. See no original research. Miranda 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)" in order to make me look silly & that I didn't read your answers properly. I know it's not reliable if I made the PDF, I'm not dumb. The fact you made me out to be when it was your mistake in your answers is underhand. Spawn Man 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Four points. First, yes, I did change some of the content above. Second, yes I can read English (see on my old userpage). This quote Umm, I don't mean to sound rude, but do you understand English...? can be seen as a personal attack, which states that editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Third, I was referring to the PDF that you made or could have formatted. That would qualify as WP:NOR, but the site can or cannot be a reliable source. Check that out before posting the PDF. Fourth, I bold out of habit. Thank you. Miranda 05:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... I love indents.... ;) Sorry you took the English comment as a personal attack. Also, I love how you link & Bold all the time - not Annoying at all!!! I don't even know how to format a PDF, & I've never had a problem with them before this. I'm going to asume you meant that if I reformat a PDF, it's not a reliable resource & that we can't use it. Well that's about it. Spawn Man 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ambiguous factoid
Does "is the only known aquatic squamate to be found in Asia and to be from before the Cenomanian stage of the Cretaceous" mean: or ? Debivort 21:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * is the only known aquatic squamate to be AND(found in Asia, from before the Cenomanian stage of the Cretaceous)
 * (is the only known aquatic squamate to be found in Asia) AND (is the only known aquatic squamate to be from before the Cenomanian stage of the Cretaceous)
 * With no knowledge on the subject, I'd assume the latter from the current wording. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Wetman just changed the article to indicate the first interpretation. Can anyone please verify that? Debivort 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The abstract:
 * Platynotan lizards underwent a dramatic Late Cretaceous radiation into marine habitats. Beginning with small-bodied forms, the lineage culminated with the mosasaurs, large predatory lizards with a world-wide distribution in the Santonian–Campanian. Moreover, the marine squamate radiations of the Cenomanian–Turonian are remarkable in having produced a range of long-bodied, reduced-limbed swimmers (dolichosaurs, adriosaurs, coniasaurs and limbed snakes) that seem to have thrived in the shallow coastal environments of the Western Tethys region. Until now, none of these long-bodied aquatic squamates has been recorded prior to the Cenomanian, none has been recovered from a non-marine locality and none is known from Asia. Here we describe a small, gracile, long-bodied mosasauroid lizard from a swampy continental deposit in the Lower Cretaceous of Japan.
 * Looks like all of the above to me. Sheep81 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the wording made clear it was the second interpretation, but obviously not, so I've changed it. Kaganaias was the first Asian aquatic squamate, the first aquatic squamate to be found before the Cenomanian and also the first aquatic squamte to be found in an inland region. Feel free to make changes to my additions to make the text clearer, but hopefully this clears up the confusion. Regards, Spawn Man 05:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Habitat
A sentence regarding the animal's habitat read: "...possibly a large floodplain which was covered with sufficiant amounts of water for most of the year." Sufficiant isn't a word, so I struck the phrase "sufficiant amounts of" from the text. While I'm fairly certain that the original author meant "significant," that word conjures its own issue, namely, what quantifiable depth of water is "significant?" Twenty centimeters, two meters, etc...Mtiffany71 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

sufficient-to be of a large enough quantity

I think that might be the word they meant, as in sufficient for an amphibian--Scorpion451 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant sufficient - musta been a typo error. Honestly, I type really fast so don't notice when I've made a spelling mistake usually. In any case, I couldn't think of a better word, so removal was probably best. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)