Talk:Ornithomimosauria


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Move
I propose this page be moved to Ornithomimosauria. The content of this article is not limited to the Ornithomimidae, and I suspect that that name may have been used as the title initially by mistake. I'd move it myself but Ornithomimosauria already has a history page (which can safely be overwritten, it's always been a redirect).Dinoguy2 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

adding geography again
After Stegosaurs and Ceratopsians, interesting to see where they all are. i started a bit underneath where traces, nomina dubia, tracks etc. can go to add to the overal geogrpahical evidence for where the group ranged to. Am expanding Timimus too. Cas Liber 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

how tall?

English nicknames
It would be nice to have some of the nicknames--such as ostrich dinosaur, ostrich dino, etc.--redirect here. 75.211.225.210 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Appear to be related to less-derived coelurosaurian..."
This part has me somewhat confused as every organism is related to every other by some degree, and if anything the ornithomimosaurs seem closer to maniraptors among coelurosaurs. Albertonykus (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's poor phrasing. They are closer to maniraptorans than to basal coelurosaurs, whatever that means. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Classification
Why isn't there an article called Ornithomimidae? When you search it, it redirects you to this article, Ornithomimosauria. There should be an article about Ornithomimidae. Troodon58 10:46, 1 May 2010

Missing Dino
What ever happened to Dromiceiomimus? 71.59.165.129 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It got synonymized with Ornithomimus. Bob the WikipediaN  (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ornithomimosauria. 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/20090115093329/http://www.taxonsearch.org/Archive/stem-archosauria-1.0.php to http://www.taxonsearch.org/Archive/stem-archosauria-1.0.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115093329/http://www.taxonsearch.org/Archive/stem-archosauria-1.0.php to http://www.taxonsearch.org/Archive/stem-archosauria-1.0.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115093329/http://www.taxonsearch.org/Archive/stem-archosauria-1.0.php to http://www.taxonsearch.org/Archive/stem-archosauria-1.0.php

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) 18:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we get another cladogram on this page?
The Hartman et al. (2019) cladogram, while inclusive, just strikes me as odd. For example, why does Ornithomimidae not include Gallimimus and Struthiomimus like it usually does? Even Mickey Mortimer, one of the coauthors of that study, uses a slightly more traditional cladogram on his website. Can we get a recent, yet more traditional cladogram on the page for contrast? 49.144.206.93 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two different topologies in this article, and Hartman et al. (2019) is just "different", so to speak. And besides, Ornithomimosauria isn't only about Gallimimus and Struthiomimus. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I feel we need a more "normal", yet still quite inclusive, recent cladogram which can be compared to the Hartman et al. one. Putting only the latter gives off the impression that it's the current consensus. 49.144.206.93 (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

alvarezsaurids
Can I add alvarezsaurids into the familes box with a question mark?--Bubblesorg (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)