Talk:Limusaurus

FAC prep
I'm thinking of getting this article to FA.... should have plenty of time to work on it given the vacuum of new avemetatarsalian taxa lately. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! As a first time nominator, it is probably best to get it to Good Article first (I still do this always before FAC). A peer review can also be nice, but those take forever to get, but I'm sure people at the dinosaur project (including me) would be happy to offer advise here. I also always get an article copy edited, to smooth out the text (make it easier to understand, and veer even more away from copyrighted text), but this may not be as necessary for native Anglophones. It is also good to base the structure closely to that of previously featured dinosaur articles. The phylogenetically closest dinosaur FA would appear to be Carnotaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers... forgot about GA! Will definitely try to get it to GA first. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have journal access? If not, like me, you can do a search for Limusaurus at Google scholar and request all relevant results at the resource request Wikipedia page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do fortunately have access to most journals, hence my significant expansion of the article today. I will keep that in mind for any Neues Jahrbuch or Zootaxa papers, though.... gah.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice to see this article light up with so much new data. Great work, Lythronax! Firsfron of Ronchester  02:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Is it really necessary to list every single specimen in the cladogram? I am not sure what this is supposed to convey here, other than yes, they all fell within the same clade, but that should be self-evident, since there is only one species. It is perhaps good to show as evidence in a research paper, but here it is just meaningless. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 's idea. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, I just couldn't really decide which cladogram to include, so I used the one that has the most relevance to Limusaurus specifically. Besides the monophyly of Limusaurus, the cladogram also displays how the younger individuals group together over older individuals. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's excessive, but well, maybe others like it. If juveniles grouping together morphologically is an important point, it should be stated explicitly in the article text, but it seems like it goes without saying. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it's highly excessive; who is really going to need to know which individual specimens might be related to which other ones? That's pretty irrelevant even to most experts.  Luso titan  16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This has reminded me that I need to get this article to FA after I work through the backlog... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks solid to me (apart from the above point), and you at least won't have any problems with complaints about description-length! Was the original description very short, or have you just condensed it a lot? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think it was even shorter before. There just hasn't been a PLOS-level osteological description for this taxon (yet...) Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, now you're back, I wonder if you want to join as FAC nominator? and I are almost done with the further expansion we think (still working on history and taphonomy), and Jens also made this neat skull diagram: FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping my hands off this article because both of you are making very good contributions (it's always hard to spot flaws in my own work...), but I'm happy to work on it in the capacity of a co-nominator! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, and in the meantime, of course feel free to do any improvements you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And, the dinosaur death pits paper mentions "Supplementary Data1", but neither I or Jens can find it. Have you come across it? FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I know nothing of the sort either. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a bit on this from the 2016 paper. Now I wonder if there should be more in text attribution to claims min the frame shift debate section? Now it is written in a way where it is hard to deduce who said what, as it is written as "fact" that some of the early claims are irrelevant. But the most neutral way would be to just give the claims chronologically and with attribution so they can speak for themselves as a "dialogue". FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jens suggested we might ask one of the authors, we could try before FAC then. By the way, I wonder if the classification section could (if we can tease this out of the sources) explain how Elaphrosaurus had long been a mystery, and that Limusaurus finally shed light on what it was, and how its missing parts may have looked? And the Noasauridae article now states it is the most completely known member of the group, would be worth mentioning here if it can be sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jim Clark sent me the supplemental doc 20 minutes after I sent him a mail about it, I just emailed them to Jens, but you don't seem to have your Wikipedia email enabled, ? In case you want it also. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know what's up with that... it should be! I'll check. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just noticed the size diagram seems to show Limusaurus as well over 2 metres long, but the only estimates I can find say 1.70. What estimate did you base the diagram on? FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I used the scale bar that Headden provides and scaled if directly from that. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that might be the case. The papers do say the holotype specimen isn't fully grown and that larger specimens exist, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like there are any published length estimates for the largest specimens. So definitely a blind spot we'll have to sort out before FAC. If we can't find any larger size estimates, I'm not sure whether Headden's can be used, because he clearly depicts the holotype as well. FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only adult specimen seems to be 15% larger than the holotype. Do we know what 15% larger than 1.70 cm is? My math skills are pretty non-existent... FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would be 1.955. Should that be metres instead? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so just short of two metres. So I guess we need to shrink the largest animal in the size comparison? And what is the smaller individual based on, ? FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC I used the anatomy and size of the "juvenile" in Figure 1C of Wang ea 2017, which they didn't list as being a specific specimen. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 21:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. Do you think you could shrink the adult down to about 2 m? Then we should be about ready for FAC. Maybe after we've looked at some attribution in the digit section. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added this image to the environment section, looks like a good approximation based on the plants mentioned there? FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've read through the article again and I think it looks pretty close to FAC, but I have a few issues I'll bring up first. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier, the classification section has some issues with lack of author attribution, lumping together of different studies and lack of chronological order. This is a bit difficult to untangle the way it is written now, so may need some restructuing.
 * The digit homology section has the same issue, but also that some claims are written as fact, when we should instead probably frame it as a debate without taking sides, and just mention who said what and when, with no editorialising.
 * Under paleoenvironment, it is written as if only taxa from the Wucaiwan locality are listed. Shouldn't we list the animals from the overall Shishugou Formation as in other articles? Or are they not all contemporaneous?
 * I'm not sure about this. The Shishugou Formation spans a considerable amount of time. I believe the use of this section is to give a picture of the specific environment that the taxon lived in, so there's not much utility to it if it covers too much. For example, it is definitely not useful to list all of the taxa of the Morrison Formation together. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If they were not contemporaries, that settles it. Is there anything else from the faunal list in the formation article from the locality that is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And lastly, we should probably see if we can somehow get the supplemental info for that death pits paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In regard to age, we now only mention how long ago it lived under classification, but I guess we should repeat this under paleoenviroment where such info is usually placed? And since one bone bed was found at another layer than the two others, does that mean it was of a different age? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, better to mention it once again. It is unlikely that the age was significantly different; the pits are stratigraphically separated by 6.5 m while the total thickness of the Shishugou Formation is 400 m; the time difference between the pits was therefore probably much less than 1 million years. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * and, now that Siamosaurus seems safer, we can probably go ahead and nominate this if you feel ready. I think there's still a bit that could be structured more clearly in the classification section, but it'll probably be a very long FAC judging on how slow the process has become, so we probably have plenty of time to fix after the nomination has begun. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now nominated, and feel free to add your names! FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limusaurus. 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/20161230100252/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-systematic-palaeontology/article/div-classtitlethe-phylogeny-of-ceratosauria-dinosauria-theropodadiv/CE0932847D5D62629D02466765A5A455 to https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-systematic-palaeontology/article/div-classtitlethe-phylogeny-of-ceratosauria-dinosauria-theropodadiv/CE0932847D5D62629D02466765A5A455

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) 11:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)