Talk:Xenoceratops

locality information
The locality information given here seems excessive, both for readability and because that might be unwise. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jargon in the Description section
Alright. This section is a bit unreadable to anyone who isn't extremely well-versed in paleontological terms. Let me explain by replacing any jargon in the first paragraph with the world, "jargon".

Xenoceratops is a jargon jargon that had two jargons (jargon2–jargon3) on the posterior jargonal jargon. The wide-based, short, jargonic (thick), and jargoned jargons (jargon2) adjacent medially to a U-shaped posterior jargon. In overall, the jargon2 jargons morphology resembles the jargon4 jargons of Albertaceratops, but the jargon2 of Xenoceratops has a pronounced dorsal jargon. In some specimens of Xenoceratops, the jargon2 jargon has an almost hook-like shape when viewed in lateral profile. The jargon3 jargon is a depressed, wide-based, elongate, straight spike that is jargonally oriented. The large right jargon3 jargon is similar to all jargons except some specimens of Centrosaurus, although it differs from all other jargons except Albertaceratops and the jargon Medusaceratops in being wide-based and jargonic, and differs from those two jargon in that the jargon is straight. Its ventral jargons of jargon at the contact with the jargons are greatly inflated. The thickened U-shaped midline posterior jargon of the jargon is similar to that seen in jargon that support large jargon3 spikes, like Albertaceratops and Diabloceratops.

See how severe the problem is? Its pretty much unintelligible.

Canobiecrazy (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One vote of agreement about this. -- 186.221.135.235 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Me too, WTH. Either this dinosaur hunted by boring its prey to death or this needs to be fixed.:P Khallus Maximus (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the top half of this article in an attempt to make it more accessible to the average reader. I'm not sure it's necessary (or even desirable) to give a laundry list of museum catalog numbers of fragmentary referred material in a general encyclopedia. I also re-worked the anatomical areas a bit, although I think more work is needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

TTIUWP- any chance of a picture/drawing/gfx for this article of this dinosaur or even of a similar one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.210.88 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

epiparietal is currently redlink
The term "epiparietal" is currently a redlink.

Could somebody please either create a stub for this, create a redirect, or give a brief definition of the term in the article? (I'm not the right person to do this.) Thanks.

-- 186.221.135.235 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"pachyrhinosaurinis": That's a typo, isn't it?
Article currently mentions "the derived pachyrhinosaurinis".

That should either be "pachyrhinosaurini" or possibly the anglicized "pachyrhinosaurines", right?

-- 186.221.135.235 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be "the derived pachyrhinosaurins", as a reference to the tribe Pachyrhinosaurini. J. Spencer (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Significant copy-paste and close paraphrase
In the recent expansion of this article, significant copy-pasting and paraphrasing took place. For example, the following sentences are copied verbatim from Ryan, Evans, Shepherd, Sues: beginning "Although no identifiable portions of the postorbitals...", "The epiparietal that partially straddles...", "CMN 53282 is retained for the holotype..." These are the worst from the duplication detector, but dozens more significant close paraphrasings are present. Chris857 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've removed this article from the Main Page until this can be resolved, but I checked the three examples you provide, and they are direct copes of complicated sentences from the reference.  I don't have time to go through this article, or trace the source of this problem, but it needs to be corrected soon, or I'm going to have to trim it back to a stub until the problem is sorted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that User:Rnnsh contributed most of the infringing material, so this revision is probably okay to revert to. Chris857 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for catching this, Chris. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a good image?
i found this image by Teratophoneus on deviantART that depicts Xenoceratops. Would it be suitable for inclusion in the article if permission can be gotten? 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The perspective is a little funny with the horns, but yes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Xenoceratops. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121111503300/http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/science/Fossilized+horn+that+museum+decades+leads+dinosaur/7518040/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/science/Fossilized+horn+that+museum+decades+leads+dinosaur/7518040/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

79.5 Ma?
This article's box suggests Xenoceratops lived 79.5 Million years ago. However, it states its fossils are known from the Foremost Formation, which, according to the latter Wiki page, spans from 78.5–77.5 Ma. Either the Xenoceratops date is wrong, or the Foremost Formation dates are wrong. --2601:206:8003:4060:9C52:4DD2:A2D5:58F5 (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Further, the paper describing Xenoceratops, link 1 in the article, gives an age of 78 Ma for its fossil remains:

"At approximately 78 Ma, it is the oldest known Canadian ceratopsid, approximately 0.5 Ma older than Albertaceratops from the lower Oldman Formation of Canada and approximately 1.0 Ma younger than Diabloceratops from the Wahweap Formation of Utah." --2601:206:8003:4060:9C52:4DD2:A2D5:58F5 (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)