Talk:Sinornis

Nomenclature
This a pretty bizarre article. Normally, if there's no consensus over synonymy, articles are kept separate until there is. Sort of innocent until proven guilty (of junior synonymy). See Coelophysis and Megapnosaurus. These are probalby synonymous and many workers treat them as such. Some do not, and no formal synonymy has been provided in an overview of both that has stood the test of a bulk of subsequent papers/taxonomic opinions.

Additionally, I don't think there's any justification for including the higher-order taxa in quotes if they were validly named. The PhyloCode is not in effect yet, and it remains to be seen how widely it will be adopted when it is. It's not our place as editors to judge the validity of a name that way. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)