User talk:Cougroyalty

Welcome!
Hi Cougroyalty! I noticed your contributions to Decapoda&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Epipelagic (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menippe. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Crocodylus" megarhinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Alligator
Hi Cougroyalty! Thank you for your edits to Alligator. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Alligatoridae into that page, and while you are welcome to do so, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I forgot to mention where I copied it from that time. I'll make sure to add a link to the copied page in the edit summary in the future. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tomistoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

About croc phylogenetics
The morphological data set used by Lee and Yates has a very high error rate. More recent studies have been published using more reliable data, and they should be used wherever possible. If one of those trees came from a different source, it wasn't evident. Email me if you want to discuss this further. (As whatever deity or deities may or may not be my witness, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. You've done a ton of work, and it's mostly very, very good.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the second cladogram on the Alligatoridae page was referencing 2013 Hastings et al. and Brochu 2011. It was a more detailed cladogram of just Alligatoridae. I can probably find a more recent cladogram for that one. I'm thinking the 2020 Cossette & Brochu study (free access). But for a good Crocodylia cladogram to replace the one from the 2018 Lee & Yates study, perhaps I could go with the 2021 Rio & Mannion study. Also, I noticed you removed the cladogram on Grypsuchinae, so maybe I could use Rio & Mannion there as well. What are your thoughts on the new data set in the 2021 Rio & Mannion study? Cougroyalty (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Their data set is better than Lee and Yates, though I would focus on trees that did not include continuous shape variation. There are also some oddities in Rio and Mannion (e.g. their position of Eocaiman; last year's revision of Eocaiman would be a far better source on that; and their recovery of a non-monophyletic Planocraniidae). So if you went with their tree, I'd at least mention that Lee and Yates suggest non-gavialoid affinities for thoracosaurs (which might be correct, albeit not for the reasons cited in their paper) and that most analyses strongly support planocraniid monophyly (the JVP paper that came out a few weeks ago re-describing Duerosuchus is what you should use). I would look to the many papers recently published by South American systematists for caimanine relationships. And I would still go with Salas-Gismondi et al. for gryposuchines.

assumptions
Suggesting it is a personal preference of mine is not an appropriate response when reverting to your own preference, or requesting reasons that were already given. Assume this instead, it might be an improvement, done in good faith, by an experienced editor, familiar with guidelines and policy, who was updating something they did at a related article, noted on its talk page, and you should open a discussion instead of insisting you just know better. ~ cygnis insignis 17:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello friend. You seem upset. Perhaps let's take a break from this and perhaps reconvene in a few days. But I'll respond to provide a little clarity. Ultimately, I was just wanting to better understand your reasons behind your edit, because they did not make sense to me. You seemed to imply there were particular guidelines or policies behind your edit. Perhaps you could share them, since I am unaware of such guidelines/policies. In my mind, it comes down to this: we both felt our own versions were better (based on personal preference). I provided my reasons for why I preferred it my way. I wanted to know your reasons why you preferred it your way. The reasons you initially provided were rather summaries of WHAT you did, and less so WHY you did them. (Perhaps consistency between living and extinct species?) I'm all for a civil discussion. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dunkleosteidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gunggamarandu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

TOOTBLAN
I just saw your TOOTBLAN edit on Ryan Theriot's page. I love it! I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about baseball stuff, but this was news to me. Wonderful addition! Matza Pizza (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * :) Cougroyalty (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

How is this original research
The Pebas Formation dates to the Colhuehuapian, which is around 21 mya, and you reverted my edit on Purussaurus by saying it was original research. Then you changed it back to the Friasian, which would have matched the citation. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page. Here is my reasoning: The 2021 Rio & Mannion study provides the Purussaurus date range of 16-5.3 Mya. (See supplement 18 in the list of Supplemental Information at the end.) So based on this date range, if we want to use the SALMA (South American land mammal age) classification, we can then infer the starting SALMA age of Friasian (16.3-15.5 Mya). (And honestly, I wonder if using SALMA ages when not provided by sources is getting close to original research...) The Colhuehuapian dates from 21-17.5 Mya, which is outside the date range provided in the 2021 Rio & Mannion paper. When you state that Purussaurus dates back to the Colhuehuapian, based on the known age of the Pebas Formation, you are doing original research by synthesizing material "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" - the conclusion you are making is that Purussaurus dates back to earlier than 16 million years ago. (See No_original_research.) Do you have any sources stating that Purussaurus dates back to the Colhuehuapian or earlier than 16 million years ago? Anyways, thanks for hearing me out. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

display_parents at Brachyosteus
Minor ranks and clades aren't routinely displayed except for when they are between the subject of an article and the next higher rank. I.e., minor ranks between order and family are displayed in a family article, but not a genus article. A genus article should show any minor ranks between genus and family. Automatic taxoboxes always display the immediate parent, so display_parents is only necessary when there are two or more minor ranks before the next higher major rank. If a minor rank (e.g. suborder Brachythoraci) is sufficiently important that you want to display it in the taxoboxes for all lower taxa, the way to do that is to set always_displayed in the taxonomy template for the important minor rank. Plantdrew (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I can understand that that is the normal standard. But sometimes I feel inclined to expand it a bit when the phylogeny is still in flux, as it is currently with the Brachythoraci arthrodires. For example, the clade Pachyosteomorphi was used in a 2016 study, but not a 2013 study by the same authors. Often times when I am trying to follow the classification of groups and species, I'll go pretty far up and down just using the information provided in the taxobox, so I like being a bit more inclusive in some situations. Eh, I guess maybe it comes down to personal preference, and you prefer less? But I think I'll follow your advice on marking Brachythoraci as set to "always displayed." Cougroyalty (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I screwed up; it should be always_display not always_displayed. Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cetacea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taras.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crayfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstitial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mekosuchus "arboreality"
I've given my reason for the revert on the Mekosuchus page already but I feel it might be worth briefly mentioning the why in a bit more detail. Basically, while researching the page its been made abundantly clear that the arboreal hypothesis has very much been blown out of proportion by popular perception and the internet and actually has little in support of it.

Arboreality was only ever truly mentioned by Willis in a 1997 review of Australasian crocodiles, in which he wrote "...the form of the humerus is so similar to that of species of Varanus it is even possible that this was an arboreal taxon..." and far as I could find was rarely discussed with any sort of greater thought by later authors. Mead et al. once used the phrase "terrestrial to semi-arboreal" without elaboration in the description of M. kalpokasi and Holt et al. meanwhile hypothesize ecology similar to Osteolaemus and Paleosuchus in a 2008 presentation (tho the paper itself has not been published due to Holt seemingly moving from paleontology to astronomy).

It's not at all mentioned by Stein et al. 2013 (despite dealing with the ecology of Mekosuchus (instead favouring the term terrestrial) and John D. Scanlon notes in 2014 that no mekosuchine unguals from Riversleigh (admittedly not New Caledonia) suggest adaptations to climbing. Arboreality is also never mentioned by Stein et al. 2020 in a paper dealing with pelvic material of Riversleigh mekosuchines (a paper notably leaning towards terrestriality for Quinkana).

Probably most damning is the fact that arboreality is also not mentioned once in the large 2023 summary of Australasian crocodilians (in a way an update to the 1997 paper), despite the fact that Willis himself was involved as an author of the paper. Instead however, the paper cites potential nocturnal behavior as suggested by Holt.

I do hope that clears things up, as a big goal of mine while working with mekosuchines was to see how much truth really lies in such popular claims, and Mekosuchus being arboreal certainly stood out as something that was massively blown out of proportions by popular online sources and artists, kinda leading into a sort of feedback loop. Tho I suppose there is still hope, as to my knowledge new limb material of the island forms is currently in the works, so that might either put another nail in the coffin or force me to rewrite those sections (ideally tho I'll at least have the family page done by that point in time, procrastination be damned).

Sorry for the massive wall of text and do have a good day, I certainly appreciate the double checking even if in this case there is good reason for my choices. Armin Reindl (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. My edit was prompted by your removal of the citation needed tag, where in your edit summary you said: So I searched the rest of the article, and couldn't find any other mention of them being nocturnal. But since you said it was mentioned elsewhere in the article, I just took a guess and assumed that you initially meant "arboreal" instead of "nocturnal", since that arboreal theory is mentioned later. (I agree that the hypothesis is pretty much discredited by now, but it was a popular hypothesis at the time.) Anyways, I guessed wrong. But their being nocturnal should probably be mentioned down in the Mekosuchus section. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I used the phrase "foraged at night" or something along those lines in the ecology section, so that might explain why you didn't find the specific word "nocturnal" outside the lead. Obviously I'm happy to ammend the phrasing if you think that it might make things clearer.Armin Reindl (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are right again. I see it there now. Oops. My apologies. It is fine as is, and I apologize for wasting your time. Cougroyalty (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)