User talk:IJReid/Archive 8

Is Bravoceratops really a nomen dubium
Because only one paper says that it was a nomen dubium, but the original paper stated the characters. I found there was a saying on DeviantArt saying that Brontomerus is also not a nomen dubium although the nomen dubium status of Brontomerus was said in a 2012 study. I wonder whether if it was gibberish or not…

Sadly the artist of that skeletal reconstruction of Brontomerus saying it's not a nomen dubium is no longer active
 * Bravoceratops was declared dubious very recently so it will take time for other authors to reject or accept it being invalid. Brontomerus was called invalid by D'Emic in 2012 but the namers replied on a blog about how it was hastily declared dubious and likely isn't, and other authors like Mannion haven't supported it being dubious, so currently it is not. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

so is it more reasonably to not formally consider Bravoceratops a nomen dubium? Huinculsaurus (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, it depends entirely on whether the interpretation on how the single known bone of Bravoceratops is to be positioned. If the new interpretation is correct, it is dubious, as there is nothing unique about it. That of course would require some more evaluation, so we can see if others agree. That is as formal as we can get with these things, a scientific consensus. It might be best to bring such issues up on article talk pages, so they can be seen by more people. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument for the new orientation is very solid - it seems very unlikely to me it will be overturned.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 00:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Also Bravoceratops link is removed from the page Chasmosaurinae, so can we change it back because it could not be formally dubious Huinculsaurus (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if it's dubious, it should still be linked, it is a valid name and should remain an article, because it's not a synonym of anything. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dubious taxa traditionally are not and should not be included in taxoboxes. We don't include Deinodon, Polyonax, Epanterias, Palaeoscincus, Diclonius, or Trachodon in their families taxoboxes since it doesn't make sense too, they aren't valid and so shouldn't be represented as if they constitute diversity. Ceratops and Agathaumas are included but they're exceptions and should be removed.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 00:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I typically include taxa regardless of dubiousness as long they are reliably referred to a clade. I don't see a point to ignoring taxa that can be confidently determined to be ceratopsids or hadrosaurids, or etc. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
 * Royal standard of England (1406–1603).svg Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Echinodon
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Echinodon has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've looked through and there's nothing but improvements. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed you're working on this guy (coming to FAC?), and I just updated Heterodontosaurus based on the new paper that finds them to be basal pachycephalosaurs, you might want to take a look! FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Echinodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xu Xing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
 Happy Birthday! Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Dynamoterror, Ostafrikasaurus and Bravoceratops now formally nomen dubium or not?
Unlucky this year, hoping not all authors seek them as dubious… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And also is the synonymy of Sauroniops and Oxalaia within Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus 100% sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So far nothing is certain, Oxaiala has not been defended, but it may considering the age and location gap. Ostafrikasaurus is teeth so unlikely to be revived, and Bravoceratops is likely to be either sunk or defended by the original authors, so the case for it is not closed. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean Dynamoterror, is it possibly dubious or 100%? it seems like Yun is not a proper paleontologist, so is it either I trust Yun or Mcdonald? also did McDonald reply on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As it stands Dynamoterror is still considered valid. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope other authors still regard it valid, and also some? questions on Pectinodon, is valid is it because its teeth are known both from HC and Lance formation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been much discussion on Pectinodon or even the remainder of Troodon material beyond the 2016 paper. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So is it still valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if you read Yun (2020) about Dynamoterror? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

like you said Dynamoterror is called invalid by Yun (2020) but it's still valid as it stands, so does Bravoceratops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bravoceratops as it stands is invalid because its diagnostic traits were considered completely misinterpreted. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

LythronaxArgestes said: Yes, clearly it will take time. At best we can say it is possibly dubious until others agree, what's your opinion about this comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So is it still like it will take time for other authors to accept or reject this opinion? I hope not all authors will agree this and retain the autapomorphies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.210.144.39 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

About Keilhauia
Delsett (2019): ''As stated in the original description of the the holotype of Keilhauia nui (Delsett et al. 2017), the preservation of the holotype specimen (PMO 222.655) is relatively poor and there is some uncertainty regarding its ontogenetic status. Zverkov and Prilepskaya (2019) consider it a nomen dubium, and it is removed from the phylogenetic analysis, “consid- ered undiagnostic”. This becomes highly problematic when the very same skeletal elements are used for referring the specimen to Arthropterygius (in open nomenclature), are used as support for four characters in the diagnosis for the genus, and also in the reconstrucion of the ontogenetic tra- jectory of Arthropterygius (Zverkov and Prilepskaya 2019).''

The phylogenetic tree of Arthropterygius thalassonotus also mentioned K.nui, but not in the phylogenetic trees of Acuetzpalin. In fact the Acuetzpalin phylogenetic tree also placed Janusaurus and Palvennia into Arthropterygius, Delsett (2019) also referred a specimen as Keilhauia sp.

What do you think of its validity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about marine reptiles to say much beyond Zverkov gives a good point it could be based on multiple animals. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 04:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Some problems with Ankylosaurs
I saw the paper of the new Ankylosaur Sinankylosaurus but it's Chinese, they also mentioned Crichtonsaurus and Zhejiangosaurus, both are claimed dubious in 2015 so is it mean that not all authors agree Zhejiangosaurus being dubious so it's not like Brontomerus?

Also, Antarctopelta is called invalid by Arbour also but in a 2016 conference paper says it's a possibly valid Ankylosaur, so who to trust? (although the genus is also mentioned in the 2017 paper of Crichtonpelta)
 * Zhejiangosaurus and Crichtonsaurus are still invalid, the article doesn't put forwards any support for them being distinct it just uses them as comparisons. Antarctopelta is questionable. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

But the 2016 conference paper said that Antarctopelta is a possibly valid taxon and there is a paper of the histology of Antarctopelta in 2019, so it seems that not all authors supported it being dubious so it's likely not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

SO can you trust this? (it's a conference paper), The 2019 study of Antarctopelta is here. I don't have the access to get that paper so does it mean the authors retained the validity and disagree with Arbour or not?

So is it like I cannot decide who (Arbour, 2015 and Gasparini, 2016) to trust so the validity of Antarctopelta is neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.210.144.39 (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about Sinankylosaurus's validity in the future?
It's only an ilium, I wonder if it may be considered a nomen dubium or not...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion, which means nothing as far as anyone is concerned, is that it will be considered invalid soon. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Free Hong Kong flag.svg Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
 * 🇮🇩HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cetiosauriscus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Cetiosauriscus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 28, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 28, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, about a "relatively obscure" dinosaur "among non-specialists, which seems to be my forté, but does have a significant number of publications about it due to its extended and complicated history. One of, if not the, most complete dinosaur from England, this would become the first Featured Article of a more basal sauropod, and the second for a British dinosaur"! - Nice harvest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is, the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by. In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were, , and. The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
 * wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

About Quilmesaurus
This taxon is called invalid in 2007, but I found subsequent papers such as the Niebla paper phylogeny doesn't regard it being dubious so is it valid by your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Carr et al 2017
Can I draw a lipless Tyrannosaur based on Carr et al 2017? Or is that not allowed?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not recommend it, many others have argued against the conclusions of that paper regarding lips (which are drawn mainly from the interviews with Carr and not the paper itself). IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, Tracy ford did have good reasons for why theropods did not have lips. That latter point about the carr interview rather than the paper is kinda strange. I will go ahead with it and just say 2017 proposed oral integument for tyrannosaurids or something. I dont really see much evidence for lips either way.--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
 * Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
 * 🇷🇼 Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
 * 🇺🇸 Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

About Haplocheirus
It's an Alvarezsauroid, but on the Hesperornithoides paper (2019) says that it's a Compsognathid. But however on the papers of the later Alvarezsaurs such as Nemegtonykus, Shishugounykus and Trierarchuncus all retain the Alvarezsauroid affinities of Haplocheirus.

So my opinion is that it's still an Alvarezsauroid NOT Compsognathid because of those later Alvarezsaur papers. Do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, our opinions on the matter don't amount to anything, as we cannot act upon these. It's placement as a basal alvaresaur has always been disputed by Mortimer, and the phylogenetic analysis of Choinere that first found that placement are less than ideal, so right now theres nothing too definitive about its placement. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

By my opinion, the current cconsensus is that is is an Alvarezsaur.

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
 * Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Gravitholus and Hanssuesia
This says Gravitholus and Hanssuesia is sunk with Stegoceras. but it's just a conference paper. And in the Sphaerotholus ontogeny paper still considers Hanssuesia distinct but they did not mention Gravitholus. SO can we say that Hanssuesia and Gravitholus is not formally synonymous and they are still distinct?
 * Gravitholus has been suggested to be invalid by other papers like Evans ea 2013, but Hanssuesia hasn't outside the abstract so it is distinct by consensus for now. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
 * Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Latenivenatrix and Nomingia
They have declared as synonyms, but I wonder if it's 100% or not? can we wait until what others say?
 * Where has Latenivenatrix been declared a synonym? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The newest paper of Alberta theropods, see it yourself. I cannot tell if the synonymy is 100%

Is it safe to say that Bravoceratops is still valid?
The Navajoceratops and Terminocavus says that Bravoceratops is invalid, but the papers of Beg and Menefeeceratops later do mention Bravoceratops' name. but Funkmonk says that the Beg Phylogenetic paper is already done before Bravoceratops is reinterpreted. What can you say about Bravoceratops after the Menefeeceratops paper mentions the name?
 * While the Menefeeceratops and Beg papers might not refer to Bravoceratops as invalid, neither attempted to reinterpret or evaluate the material. The opinions of the Navajoceratops/Terminocavus papers should take priority as they reinterpret the material and provide reasoning for their invalidation of the taxon. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your WP:RMT request
WP:RMT is generally not the right venue to close discussions like these. You or another participant should have initiated a WP:RM, WP:RFC, or normal WP:MERGE discussion and then posted a WP:CR. Anyways, not everyone can know every venue on Wikipedia, and it's a bit too late for either of them now. If that's ok for you, I will monitor the discussion and attempt to close in a week (depending on participation and recent activity), so we don't have to make this any more complicated and bureaucratic than it is. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks. The discussion did start in a rather unfortunate manner, as the page was tagged with a merge proposal and then left for quite some time with the editor not starting a discussion. A week should be fine hopefully its dealt with before then. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Styracosaurus
Hello. Would you be able to update the Styracosaurus article with these papers ? LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see what I can do. They are already incorporated into the text in some capacity but I can probably rewrite much of their paragraphs in a clearer way. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Styracosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Horner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am getting a bit frustrated with Magnatyrannus guy, How to deal with his edit wars
I know it is strange for me to say this, but Magnatyrannus is getting a bit annoying and hard to work with. I do take pitty on him (I am one of the few wikipedians with soul unfortunately) but he needs to get his act together. I just wonder, how can we stop him from his edit warring.--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've considered looking at having a topic ban instated, but I may need more people to support something similar. Basically we have two options, a temporary block from all editing, or a topic ban on paleo (which is very similar in end result). It's been a while since I've had to look at administrative methods, perhaps FunkMonk or Lythronaxargestes would know more about what to do.
 * Actually, it looks like a noticeboard incident report has already been started: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont really want him banned permanently as yet--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Apatosaurus at WP:URFA/2020
You are invited to URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, Apatosaurus, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)