User talk:Lythronaxargestes/Archive 1

May 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page CinemaSins has been reverted. Your edit here to CinemaSins was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/CinemaSins) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel feolree to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Lessem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NOVA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Ice Age characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skull and crossbones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ornatenton Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allkaruen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Optic lobe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aymberedactylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tapejara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tarchia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supraorbital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur Planet (TV series)
I haven't a clue what you are saying with this. I reverted vandalism introduced by an IP. Direct your comments to them. Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies. The vandalism was a good-faith edit that attempted to restore the addition of unsourced material by a previous editor (but accidentally broke the table in the process). By reverting that edit, you re-introduced the unsourced material, and that was the subject of my edit summary. I have fixed it now. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tongtianlong
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Promoting articles
Hi, I see you're adding a lot of good stuff to various articles, whereas most other paleo editors only add sprinkles of text here and there. Have you considered writing a complete article about a subject and nominating it for Good Article and Featured Article? FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The thought hasn't crossed my mind to date, but I will definitely consider it in the future. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, feel free to ask if you have any questions about the processes! FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Genus parameter in Automatic taxoboxes
I've noticed you're consistently leaving a genus parameter when you convert manual taxoboxes to automatic. The genus parameter (and most other rank based parameters) does nothing in automatic taxoboxes. It's not parsed. Leaving it in just clutters the taxobox. You can convert the parameter name from "genus" to "taxon" which does a little to ease processing of the template (having the taxon parameter present tells the auto taxobox the title of the relevant taxonomy template; automatic taxoboxes work OK if the taxon parameter is missing, but have to go through some extra steps to determine the taxonomy template from the page title). This is just for the standard automatic taxobox template; the genus parameter is parsed and does serve a function with the speciesbox template. 22:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Thanks for all the work you've been doing setting up automatic taxoboxes. Plantdrew (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Help on Paraves
I see we both take a timely interest in Paraves. You're obviously knowledgeable. I proposed organizing a new section 'Fossil record', to detail the characteristics of the critters basal or near basal to this taxon, regardless of their cladistic positioning. There are quite a few interesting Chinese fossils now. The 'Origin and evolution' section I intended to capture both descendant evolution and ancestry. Basal paravians were already small (600-700g) in a world of dinosaurs weighing hundreds to thousands of pounds. They were feathered, had fused hand-wrist bones, hinged wrists (for folding wings), quill-and-barb flight feathers and protowings (possibly 4). How did this animal get to be such a bird? That started long before, according to my sources, 20 million to 50 million years before. I might point out that Paraves is a hypothetical animal - it's never going to exist actually. We keep pushing the boundary of the taxon back with each new fossil find. It started with Archaeopteryx at 150 MYa, now we're at maybe 165 Mya, eating into that 20-50 million years of bird-attribute evolution. There's quite a lot to say there. Paraves for practical purposes is defined by a single fossil, that one which is the least bird-like dinosaur fossil we're willing to call a 'bird', contrasted with another fossil which is the most bird-like dinosaur fossil we're still willing to call a 'dinosaur'(not-bird). Any fossil that falls inbetween redefines the genre. The three main divisions remain Avialae, Dromaeosauridae, and Troodontidae. The others sort of comprise an odd outgroup. I'm still sorting through all this. Take a peek at my proposed intro section on talk page - it covers a lot of stuff not yet described in the text of the article, because I haven't yet written it. Sbalfour (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where you're going with this. Perhaps a better way to word the "20-50 my" info would be "[...] traits commonly associated with paravians gradually appeared 20-50 My prior to the group's emergence [...]". Also took a look at your proposed lead - I would trim it down substantially, two paragraphs max. The lead doesn't need to effectively recap the whole article, just give a brief introduction. Final note - please try to use "paravians", not "paraves", when referring not to the grouping itself but rather its members. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

dumbing down of lead in Brontosaurus
Well, fix it! I gave it my best shot, it was threadbare. We have a different style, me and you. But I shan't feel annoyed if you overrule me - you know more than I do. But I find myself following multiple depths of wikilinks in technical articles, and I'm reasonably literate. What about the 'average' citizen, who doesn't know how long ago Jurassic was, or the names of obscure geological formations?Sbalfour (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Limusaurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Limusaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Limusaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Limusaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brancasaurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brancasaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ashorocetus -- Ashorocetus (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article Brancasaurus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brancasaurus for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ashorocetus -- Ashorocetus (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The article Brancasaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brancasaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ashorocetus -- Ashorocetus (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatzegopteryx
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hatzegopteryx you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The article Hatzegopteryx you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hatzegopteryx for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euchambersia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Euchambersia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Euchambersia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Euchambersia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Knoetschkesuchus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Knoetschkesuchus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Knoetschkesuchus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Knoetschkesuchus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eolambia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eolambia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Eolambia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eolambia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dinocephalosaurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dinocephalosaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dinocephalosaurus
The article Dinocephalosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dinocephalosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cartorhynchus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cartorhynchus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cartorhynchus
The article Cartorhynchus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cartorhynchus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow, thank you! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Extinction daggers
Just for future reference regarding this, it has been brought up numerous times in the past, actually. The last consensus was to keep it in taxoboxes as well as lists and cladograms where both extinct and extant taxa are included (i.e. mixed). They do help to quickly differentiate which taxa are still living and which aren't, as well as allow readers to quickly see how "extinct" a taxon is by seeing the status of the taxa it is classified under. Here are the last two I participated in: Cheers. - O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  13:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_10
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_34
 * Noted, thanks for the info. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

uncited material on Arthropleura
I noticed that you undid my edit on Arthropleura as it was "uncited". The reason behind my edit was to remove some uncited material that extended the fossil range.Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but your edit isn't cited either. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not the right link
Hello Lythronaxargestes, your edit of Camarasaurus] has actually broken a working link. Please revert it, or fix Skull. XyKyWyKy aka raffriff42 (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then somebody must have changed the section title. It was fine when I changed it god-knows-how-long-ago. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Rank in taxonomy templates
Hi, just a reminder than in taxonomy templates, ranks must be Latin (e.g. "ordo" not "order"). There's a list of accepted ranks at Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates, which may be useful. The autotaxobox system may appear to work with English rank names, but some features don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I've forgotten again. Apologies! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; I wrote a lot of the documentation, but I still forget sometimes! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Liaoningvenator) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Liaoningvenator, Lythronaxargestes!

Wikipedia editor Steve Quinn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Keep up the good work."

To reply, leave a comment on Steve Quinn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Steve Quinn (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Lythronaxargestes. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ALythronaxargestes enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 05:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Dilophosaurus for FAC
Hi, I saw you did a few edits at Dilophosaurus, and I've wanted to take it to GAN and FAC for a while, especially after watching Jurassic Park on the big screen for the first time a few months ago... I'll work on it in any case, but you're of course welcome to join as co-nominator if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'd like to wrap up Gracilisuchus first, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, I think the Classification section could really be beefed up. My experiences writing Shuangbaisaurus tell me that issues of Sinosaurus taxonomy should probably warrant at least a brief discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no rush, I'll be busy with Elasmosaurus in the immediate weeks anyway. But Dilophosaurus is definitely the next dinosaur on my list, it is a staple of dinosaur books, one of our most popular genus articles, and its image from Jurassic Park needs to be "rectified"... May also be a good way to introduce you to FAC nomination? As for the article's current condition, I think most of it has to be completely rewritten... FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that it might be good practice as well. My plan is to go for a FAC if new work is published on a taxon for which I've written a GA. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're of course also welcome to join in on Elasmosaurus (you have experience from Brancasaurus after all, and I'm not so familiar with plesiosaurs), the prospect of writing the history section is already giving me a headache... has given the article a solid basis, and the plan is FAC as well (would be the first plesiosaur there). FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look through the lit first. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool! I just realised that only a single, very fragmentary specimen is known, so the description will be a bit of a challenge... We also need to give a more general description of it when alive, but not sure if any of the scientific sources actually do that, since there is so little material... I also have no idea where to look for a weight estimate. Also, I was surprised to learn that Elasmosaurus is the most popular plesiosaur genus-article on Wikipedia, more popular than even Plesiosaurus itself: So it's nice to get the article in god shape, as it is kind of an "ambassador" for plesiosaurs here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like Everhart (2005) will be helpful... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And a postscript.... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, there you go, I had no idea about that postscript. I wrote the skull and axis/atlas description based on the main paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I continue writing, are there any sections of the article you would prefer to work on? Then I'll focus on other sections. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would probably work mainly on Classification, and maybe expand some of the taxonomic details in Discovery and naming. Feel free to work on either section though, I'm quite preoccupied this week.... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll go ahead and try to finish the description then, it'll take some time in itself... FunkMonk (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Three recent reversions
Howdy - you may note I undid three recent reversions of yours, where you removed material added by Saberrex-Strongheart. I'm aware that they can often be a little trying with their half-sourced enthusiasm, but in each case there was at least one perfectly valid source available - at American alligator, at National Geographic article and a paper; at Hadrosaurid, a paper; and at Tyrannosaurus, a recent Princeton UP publication. All of these are valid and reliable sources, so I inserted correctly formatted references. Nor is the added information particularly outlandish or questionable. So I hope you will agree that those contributions are fine now. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I will have to disagree on the count of Tyrannosaurus. Gregory S. Paul has no degree and approaches dangerously close to original research. Paul does not cite any of the literature which allowed him to draw the conclusions that he did, and thus his conclusion is questionable until primary sources from the literature can be provided to support his assertions. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't have access to that book, but I see that Hell Creek Formation reports current interpretation of climate as not exactly conducive to chilly winters, so it's at least not the mainstream reading. OK, I'll be reverting that one. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

ICS updates 2017
I see you updated the ICS dates on the Triassic and Permian templates but didn't update the associated pages. It is fine for you not to do that as I am doing that at the moment but I need some help with the Geological period templates (For the Permian/Triassic boundary update from 252.2 to 251.902) and Period Start/end templates as I am unable to edit them for some unknown reason, if you could help me out that would be great.Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea which pages you are referring to. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the Permian Template:Permian and Triassic Template:Triassic templates and their associated pages. and the Period Start templates that are sometimes used on the pages such as Period Start|Triassic and the Geological Period template at the top of the Permian Period and Triassic Period PagesLavalizard101 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Template:Period start is for template editors only. I cannot help you. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Planet Dinosaur
I support the removal of content surrounding A second series/Planet Cenozoic/Planet Paleozoic as it is obviously false. It is possible that it could be the same editor as an editor on the Planet Dinosaur Wikia has been doing the same thing. Main reason we know it is false over there is due to the fact that one of the animals that apparently appeared was a cenozoic spinosaur (which is obvious false as there is no such thng). I would keep an eye on the editor and page just to make sure he doesn't try again.Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WPDINO
Thanks for the comment! Not sure what that person's deal is... lol. I run a crazy query to find pages in need of converting. Tag them all to put them in a category and then clean them up. Apparently it was the end of the world to have that tag at the bottom of the template? -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment! be careful who you talk to ... (also I wasn't referring to that tag specifically, I read over the template documentations and it really did nothing to help, and you didn't really do anything to help, and theres no policy for me to look at to get help). PS: WikiProject members tend to watchlist each others pages.  IJReid  discuss 05:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ve(r)speropterylus
Hallo Lythronaxargestes! You recently created an article Vesperopterylus. However, the source uses the generic name Versperopterylus (Yes, I couldn't at first believe it either). Was it simply correct Latin that guided you, or could it be that it has somewhere been announced that the name will be emended in the print edition?

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, stupid name has me confused again. I can't seem to spell it right. I'll move the page. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's hope that after the article appears in print, you'll have to move it again :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Our hope has been fulfilled... And at last, I can create the Dutch article.--MWAK (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes :) Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert
Hi, Lythronaxargestes. You reverted my edition when the picture says "Hand drawn Troodon.jpg", not Stenonychosaurus. I'm sorry if i talk basic english. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , that's the filename. It doesn't matter what the filename says, Troodon has zero remains besides teeth. Any full-body restorations claiming to be Troodon are actually Stenonychosaurus or Latenivenatrix. It is explicitly intended to be a Stenonychosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, i'm sorry. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My talk page
Is there a reason you reverted that person's comment on my page? Not angry, just curious. Is it a bad account? Foodles42 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , the user is a persistent vandal: Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I figured. Many thanks.  Foodles42 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Lythronaxargestes: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A page you started (Zhuchengtitan) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Zhuchengtitan, Lythronaxargestes!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I'll assume that more references are coming. A good start for a notable topic."

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Eolambia
Hi there, since you recently greatly expanded Eolambia (many thanks for that!): I just uploaded two new images ,. Not sure if they are useful, just to let you know ;-) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! It would go nicely with the text under "Limbs and limb girdles", except I appear to be out of space..... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Overspecific dating in taxoboxes
Out of curiosity, why the removal of the Age names (Lutetian, Priabonian) from the Fossil-range template, in favor of the mya dates (that are typically being revised every few years and will require constant maintainance?  Also separating the type species from other species (eg at Casaleia) and not listing it with the full species list is not a typical taxobox format, it creates confusion when the type species is not the same genus as the current combination.-- Kev  min  § 17:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Messaged at Talk:Protopone. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus
Hello, – I see you've been working on Elasmosaurus with FunkMonk. A while ago, FunkMonk posted a request for a copy-edit at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, later adding that it would be all right if I waited until the article had reached the top of the queue. It is near the top now, so I thought I'd take a look at the article and ask FunkMonk if I could begin the copy-edit. I'd just like to mention something, though. In your edit summaries in  and those just previous to it, you used abbreviations such as "wrdn" and "dtl" to explain your edits. I assume that "dtl" means added, or changed, a detail, and "wrdn" means changed the wording. However, to some editors, these collections of letters may be meaningless. Many of our editors are non-native speakers of English or young people who may be mystified by these abbreviations. May I suggest that at the very least, you write out "detail" or "wording" in full? Even better, use a phrase such as "Changed detail", "Changed to reflect source", "Minor change to wording", or "Minor copy-edit"? Just a suggestion, of course. – Corinne (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That's doable. I assumed abbreviations were permissible given their usage by other editors when I commenced my active editing. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As for beginning copy-edit, I think it's pretty close now, right? FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm trying to see if I'm missing any research from 2004-2014, a rather large gap... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's done. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I of course hope you'll return from "retirement" one day, but anyway, thanks for joining in on Elasmosaurus, which is now featured! FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've sent you an email about getting your old GAs to FAC, notifying you here in case you don't use it anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back, I hope I didn't put needless stress on you by sending such messages while you were away. I and have been thinking about continuing work on some of your articles, but now that you're here you should of course have a say. But no pressure, of course! FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see them - I'd stopped using that email in the meantime. Please feel free to take over on any of them, this is a collaborative project after all ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am also very happy to see you back again! We started working on Limusaurus btw., as the step towards FA is not that high as you did most of the quality work already (thanks for that!). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping up with it, thanks for the many improvements! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Osteology of the Reptiles
I've finally made enough progress on s:Index:The Osteology of the Reptiles.pdf to warrant a note to you. Part I is complete (through page 201) and ready for a second set of eyes to do the verification.

Only 30 images remain for me to process, but there are difficulties with indentations of the lists in the second section misaligning once they are transcluded. I'm not sure who I would talk to if I can't figure out how to fix this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Skeletals for Wikipedia
Hi! Would you upload your skeletals from DeviantArt to Wikimedia Commons to be featured in their respective Wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.232.58 (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Lythronaxargestes
Thank you for your help, you are quite nice to me while the others made ridiculous accusations continuously. You are right those people did alienate me. The fact you came forward helped me a lot. While there is still work to be done, you actually made me feel like I was getting help. Your the kind of editor Wikipedia needs, continue the great work! :D regards Pranav Iyer P.S can you help me on Basilosaurus?--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary on my user page, I am not returning to full-time editing. Not yet. I only reactivated this account so that I could help you get past this mess. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that for me :D --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2607
The other 2607 ip is not me, my ip starts with 2601 I believe--Bubblesorg (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Segnosaurus
I notice you removed the link to 'Mongolia'. I think linking Mongolia is a matter of interpreting Manual of Style/Linking bullet point

The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: To me, the sense of the above quote from the MoS is that 'Mongolia' is not a major country, and that many users of the English Wikipedia would be unfamiliar with the country and its terrain. Which is why I added the link. How do you view the excerpt from the MoS?
 * countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian) (emphasis in the original)

Wonderful article, though. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I seriously doubt that Mongolia is an obscure country. Even if it was:
 * The article Mongolia mainly contains historical and sociopolitical information, which is completely uninformative for understanding this extinct animal
 * Gobi Desert is linked almost immediately after, which provides exactly the same geographic information as the article for Mongolia
 * That being said, I'll defer to, the main author of the article, on this subject. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * During FAC we are routinely told to delink countries, so I don't see why this should be an exception. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious attempt by User:WelcometoJurassicPark to block me
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.
 * That's rich. You're an asshole. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.

About your revertings
Now I have found out you have reverted some of my edits about some species classifications which is true after some studies, including the synonymy of Neocathartes within Bathornis, which is confirmed by Mayr & Noriega (2016), and additionally, the taxonomy of Rwenzori turaco, which is not yet accepted by the International Ornithologists' Union.


 * Sorry, you need to show evidence that the synonymy is the subject of consensus in the literature. Conversely there is no reason why we should be held to the opinions of a particular organization if there is consensus in the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Something about Aerodactylus and the Azhdarchid affinities of Alanqa
I wonder if Bennett (2017) only say that Aerodactylus is more likely a jr. synonym of Pterodactylus but doesn't say they were nomen dubium, and also can you fix the classification of Alanqa as a Azhdarchid on the study of Mistralazhdarcho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bennett never called Aerodactylus dubious. Don't know what you mean about Alanqa? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean the Mistralazhdarcho paper says that Alanqa is a relative of Mistralazhdarcho, the classification of Alanqa page should be fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But... OK? That doesn't change the fact that the analysis finds it to be an azhdarchid? So the page addresses it already. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Elasmosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 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/July 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?  10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2406 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you today - again - for your share to Elasmosaurus, "the most viewed articles about a long-necked plesiosaur genus, and gets more hits than even Plesiosaurus itself"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks again. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

About the Dynamoterror paper by Yun (2020)
I asked IJReid about Dynamoterror being a nomen dubium, he answered As it stands it's still valid now. Like before I asked him about Bravoceratops and Brontomerus being invalid, he answered It will take time for other authors to accept or reject it being invalid and Brontomerus was called invalid by D'Emic in 2012 but the namers replied on a blog about it hastily declared it dubious and likely isn't, and other authors like Mannion haven't supported it being dubious so it's not What's your opinion? Is it like it will take time for other authors accept Yun's opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 08:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how any opinion gets disseminated throughout the field. It's not like everybody will unanimously accept a new conclusion overnight. Even if that was the case, Wikipedia policy dictates that we follow the consensus established by published literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Also on Bravoceratops, it's called dubious this year and IJReid says :Bravoceratops as it stands is invalid because its diagnostic traits were considered completely misinterpreted, but is it like it would take time for other authors to accept or reject it being invalid like Brontomerus? what's your opinion?

I hope other authors will retain its validity because the original diagnostic traits is featured.
 * Yes, clearly it will take time. At best we can say it is possibly dubious until others agree. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So I will fix the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about Zhejiangosaurus and Crichtonsaurus?
The Sinankylosaurus paper do mention these two foes, but Arbour (2015) treated them invalid, IJReid also said: Zhejiangosaurus and Crichtonsaurus are still invalid, the article doesn't put forwards any support for them being distinct it just uses them as comparisons. So what do you think about this, does the namers of Sinankylosaurus care about these taxon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the paper but I don't disagree. You don't need to discuss only valid taxa in a paper... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's here, but i don't seem to get the access to the paper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It also stated Antarctopelta as a nomen dubium, but Gasparini (2016) re-validated this genus in a conference, there is also a study of Antarctopelta in 2019 describing the histology of its bones. IJReid says it's validity is questionable, so who to trust best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think the conference paper has gone through much review. (Note the correct citation: Rozadilla et al.) The 2019 paper also cites this conference paper. For all intents and purposes this result should be treated as maybe plausible but definitely forthcoming. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean that this 2019 paper supported its validity? But an 2017 paper on Crichtonpelta still regard several taxon as dubious (you know, Minmi is revalidated in 2015 after the description of Kunbarrasaurus.), see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cerda et al. (2019) wrote of Antarctopelta, and I quote,
 * "Although this taxon was considered as a nomen nudum by Arbour and Currie (2016), a recent review performed by Rozadilla et al. (2016) validated its taxonomic status based on the presence of autapomorphic features."


 * So yes, this paper at least agrees with the conclusion that it is valid.
 * I think the point that you are missing is that not all papers are obligated to agree on the same taxonomy, and one paper by itself doesn't overturn the state of knowledge. Different researchers naturally have different opinions. What we care about is the dominant consensus, if there is one, among these opinions. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED TO PANTYDRACO AND ASYLOSAURUS?!?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1770774

You (science) are supposed to keep them from being synonymous! Now, I'm going to lose my job! AND YOU (science) WILL LOSE YOUR LIVES!!

(I learned this from SpongeBob, this parody is dedicated to this paper)
 * I won't miss the name Pantydraco, that's for sure. Geez. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What about the Asylosaurus stuff, is it 100% synonymous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I quote:
 * "Based on the lack of diagnostic traits to distinguish it from Thecodontosaurus, we consider Asylosaurus yalensis a taxon of highly questionable validity."


 * Doesn't mean it's 100% Thecodontosaurus. The purported autapomorphies can't be assessed for Thecodontosaurus because the latter does not preserve the relevant features. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

So is it not either a nomen dubium though?
 * Did they call it one? No. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I MEAN did they also considered Asylosaurus a nomen dubium? Huinculsaurus (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want any other genus of dinosaurs being called invalid or being sunk this year
Unlucky this year, Bravoceratops called invalid by Fowler & Freedman Fowler,Dynamoterror called invalid by Yun,Sauroniops and Oxalaia considered to be synonymous by Ibrahim, and NO nomen dubium revalidated…

Is it because of this year is Gengzi year? we have 4 months left, i hope only GOOD things happen to paleontology…

So the future of Bravoceratops and Dynamoterror is on other authors' they will decide to reject or accept these two foes being invalid, i hope they retain it valid… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It also seems that Yun and Ibrahim are not proper paleontologists… hoping next year will have MORE AND MORE DINOS BEING DESCRIBED AND REVALIDATED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ibrahim is not a "proper paleontologist"? That's an unbelievably bad take. He's a postdoc for crying out loud. And nobody in the field is obligated to follow your whims. No offence. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

2 reasons Ibrahim is not a proper paleontologist(in my view only)

1:Because he ignored how Cau (2012) differentiating Sauroniops and Carcharodontosaurus.

2:He sunk Oxalaia into Spinosaurus Huinculsaurus (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion is unchanged. Bad take. He is entitled to his informed scientific views. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The validity of Dynamoterror and Bravoceratops in the future is on the hand of other authors
I hope they will be like Brontomerus, it's called invalid by D'Emic in 2012 but the namers replied on a blog about how it was hastily called invalid and likely it isn't and others did not support it being dubious so it's not.

Do you hope so? I hope so. Huinculsaurus (talk) 11:57, 23 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) 05:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you not working on DeviantArt still?
you returned Wikipedia in 2019 but you still did not return to DeviantArt though...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What, do I have to? I'm not going back. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

What to do with Dinheirosaurus
In the 2015 revision Dinheirosaurus falls into Supersaurus, making the combination S.lourinhanensis. But in a 2019 conference rejects this synonymy, finding it to be a more basal position. So i wonder if i can add the conference and remove the synonymy within Supersaurus at the page Supersaurus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have told you, probably several times, that conference papers are not subject to rigorous peer review. You may not remove the synonymy. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How are them preserved?
I found the original papers of those prehistoric fish but I don't seem to get access to it, I wonder how are them preserved?

1: The sturgeon Engdahlichthys 2: The wrasse Wainwrightilabrus

and also on some of the fossil fish named long before such as Parapristipoma prohumile, it's mentioned here, how many non-otolith fishes are mentioned here?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "preserved". Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Their fossils, I want to know what they have been looked like because I cannot get access to the paper. Maybe you can, so I can know their how are their fossils looked like.
 * "Engdahlichthys milviaegis, gen. et sp. nov. Holotype — UWBM 109829 (= MOR 10228), a partial, three-dimensional, articulated specimen preserving the head (except the snout region) and anterior portion of the body. A partial caudal fin and an anal fin are associated with the specimen."
 * I don't have access to the second one and I don't read French. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A better option is that you request the papers at WP:RX instead of bothering users and wasting their time. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 16:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

About this paper mentioning a species of Alestes
New material from the Pliocene fish beds of Wadi Natrun, Egypt, is described, including a new species of Alestes (Characidae). A total of 15 freshwater and at least four marine genera are now known from the site. This fauna is reviewed with particular regard to the fossil history and zoogeographical relationships of its component taxa.

This paper mentions a species of Alestes, but I cannot get access to it. So I wonder if what the species of Alestes is… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alestes deserti sp. nov. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but the species is moved to Sindacharax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What to do with Acanthopholis
Syngonosaurus is its synonym, but it just classified as a iguanodontian, so does it mean the validity of Acanthopholis should be defended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What? How does that affect the holotype? It doesn't. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravoceratops mentioned in the phylogeny of the new ceratopsian Beg
They did not put an bracket on Bravoceratops so is it mean that they did not support Bravoceratops being dubious?

Dynamoterror's validity is also on the hand of other authors, although the a study dedicated to this foe is made by Yun.What do you think? of it?
 * They probably just made the analysis before the paper that reinterpreted the fossil. It takes a looong time to publish papers, you know. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, Beg is the new ceratopsian just announced hours before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How does that even change anything that Funk said? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So it means it would still take time for other authors to reject or accept it being invalid… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Hoping it would be retained valid by others… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it means they were not aware of the other study, so it makes no difference. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of Yun?
I wonder what kind of paleontologist is he？ He is the one who named Teihivenator that only lived for DAYS, it's now a INVALID CHIMERA. He calls Dynamoterror a nomen dubium but i don't know why he calls this taxon a nomen dubium, its fossil are not that old, they're discovered in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna lower myself to the level of personal attacks. Age has nothing to do with whether a fossil is a nomen dubium. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 12:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, Yun is not a proper paleontologist.

Because he is the namer of the invalid "Teihivenator" Because he considered Dynamoterror as possibly invalid

See his newest paper of Daspletosaurus, it do mentioned Dynamoterror and he placed Thanatotheristes as Daspletosaurus degrootorum.

Before I asked IJReid about the Daspletosaurus horneri paper saying Qianzhousaurus as a species of Alioramus IJReid says there is no mention of that, so is it likely that the newest paper also is no mention of Thanatotheristes/Daspletosaurus degrootorum being a species too?

So by my opinion, the formal validity of Dynamoterror would still take time for others to reject or accept it being invalid just like on the study of Geranoididae by (2019) Eogruidae was considered to be ratites along with Geranoididae, but the Sinoergilornis paper doesn't buy that.
 * Look, I don't appreciate the commentary on whether people are "proper palaeontologists". This is going into "no true Scotsman" territory. If anyone who did something remotely unethical — or, god forbid, named a nomen nudum — was not a proper palaeontologist, the list of palaeontologists would shrink by a lot. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Does this paper mention new taxa?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1780248
 * No. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What's your opinion about the validity of taxa like Sinankylosaurus and Thanos in the future?'
They are too fragmentary, so i'm concerned about their validity.

Do you think they will be called invalid soon? or they will retained valid?
 * I mean, I don't know? Their diagnoses are weak so there is the possibility that someone could just up and declare them nomina dubia. Or best case new remains are found, allowing a revised diagnosis. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope they will be not declared invalid.
 * I doubt any researcher cares. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Think about Xenoposeidon, it's also known from fragmentary remains and is declared invalid by D'Emic in 2012, but the authors disagree with that and no new remains have been discovered during these times. In a 2018 study did found it to be a valid sauropod, this also supports the Rebbachisaurid affinity of it.

What is the diagnosis of the new Metriorhynchus lectotype?
You know Metriorhynchus has been restricted to the type species and a new lectotype is proposed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you mean. A specimen can't have a diagnosis. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The family position of Camarillasaurus and Eoabelisaurus are turning me into nuts
Eoabelisaurus is classified as a ceratosaurid in 2018's phylogeny on Etrigansauria, also on the Huinculsaurus paper but NOT the Tralkasaurus, who classifies it as non-Abelisaurid Abelisauroidea. something interesting is that the Vectaerovenator and Spectrovenator phylogeny still supports the Abelisaurid position of it.

Camarillasaurus is reinterpreted as a spinosaurid in a 2019 conference, this is also mentioned in here, but some other post 2019 papers still supports the Ceratosaurian position such as the Spectrovenator phylogeny.

SO what should be their best position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, the Spectrovenator paper has been in press for a while? It hasn't had time to reflect new research. I keep talking about consensus, but are you following? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

SO can we say it's best to classify Eoabelisaurus as a Abelisaurid and Camarillasaurus as a ceratosaur still? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Until more papers come out supporting the new conclusions. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Thank you! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Eogyrinus attheyi or Pholiderpeton attheyi?
What is the best name for this? Amphibian? Should Eogyrinus merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like Eogyrinus has been subsumed into Pholiderpeton for a long time now, there is barely any debate about this. I don't know why there is even an article for it. Some go as far as calling it just Pholiderpeton scutigerum. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misspoke, some phylogenies do suggest that they are not closely related. But there has been nothing official to reinstate Eogyrinus. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SO I wonder if we can seperate this page because Wikipedia follows is neutral? As well as Koskinonodon which was sunk with Anaschisma in a paper in 2019 but a subsequent paper also mentions the name Koskinonodon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1: No. That's not what neutrality means.
 * 2: That's different. The Anaschisma paper was published formally in 2020 and no one has responded. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Which paleontologist says Pyroraptor is a nomen dubium?
I saw it on DeviantArt an artist called Cisiopurple put Pyroraptor in the nomen dubium folder, who said that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 08:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but Pyroraptor is fragmentary and questionable as many researchers acknowledge. Still, people like to have opinions about dinosaurs on the internet, why would you think this is any different? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I also found many phylogenetic trees regarding Pyroraptor as a valid taxon, just like the Fukuivenator and the Imperobator phylogeny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So my opinion is that it is NOT true that many authors regard Pyroraptor dubious, take that?

Can we 100%put Tethydraco as an Azhdarchid?
See this, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667120303669 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is anything 100%? No, clearly not. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

but someone is already classifying it as a azhdarchid, but it isn't 100%. so can we just put it as a pteranodontid still in the article"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be one or the other? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BECAUSE it isn't 100% sure. I think it is the same as the new paper who classifies Volgadraco as a Pteranodontid instead of Azhdarchid

Kaatedocus is a Dicraeosaurid?
The Smitanosaurus paper says it is a Dicraeosaurid, so by your opinion is it not 100% too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, of course. They justify this result by a bunch of character corrections but it clearly remains to be seen whether others will accept this conclusion. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You know, Kaatedocus is known from complete skull remains. and we also have a whole bunch of other Diplodocids known from complete skull. and many Dicraeosaurids are not known complete skull. so is it safe that we retain Kaatedocus as a Diplodocid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what preservation has to do with taxonomy. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

About Arthropterygius
Well Janusaurus, Palvennia and Keilhauia is considered as species of Arthropterygius and Keilhauia (A.hui) is considered as a moment dubium in a 2019 study. But in a study later dismiss the synonymy, as well as the Arthropterygius thalassonotus phylogeny I saw on Twitter do mention Janusaurus, Keilhauia and Palvennia distinct genus and Keilhauia is stated as a valid name there. But not the Acuetzpalin and Thalassodraco paper. So who can we trust best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well those are two separate issues. Janusaurus and Palvennia depend on the phylogeny. Ophthalmosaurids are not stable generally. Keilhauia requires time to be accepted as dubious. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

See this and the phylogeny of A. Thalssonotus paper do mention Keilhauia as valid. But the Acuetzpalin and Thalassodraco paper do still support this, even though the study rejecting the three genus’synonymy is published before.
 * Yes, I know that. I read those papers for Acamptonectes. The first paper in fact includes a rebuttal to the points made in the second paper. You can clearly see there is no answer because they are still hashing it out. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ostafrikasaurus doesn't deserve to be named
Because I heard someone says that it's only known from a tooth, so it's weird to name a reptile genus only known from a tooth. Can't they just name it after the skeletal remains unearthed? It would be a mess.
 * Mammals are named from much less... Sure, it's bad practice, but people still do it regardless. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I heard someone says that the genus revival of Oxalaia and Sauroniops is a low opportunity
Someone says they had the same fate. And if the new fossils of Oxalaia unearthed, it may rejects the genus validity. But I hope they would be revived at best for new specimens unearthed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

About this statement
Well we did not have a nomen dubium re-validated since the redescription of Xenoposeidon.

Someone says that if a nomen dubium named before re-validated with no phylogenetic changes is bad, but I don't think so. see Rapator and Lumbrerasaurus.

I hope we can get some re-validated this year. For Dynamoterror, i think it will be like Antarctopelta re-validated in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know who this "someone" is that you keep quoting but they sure don't have many good takes. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A person I know at a blog website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

About Caninemys
Caninemys is a skull based Podocnemidid, but it was made as a synonym of Stupendemys, a genus not known from shell (2020). I wonder if the synonym is 100%sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about turtles so I can't tell you why they decided a phylogenetic analysis was sufficient for determining synonymy under the same species. The paper has not been cited yet so I also cannot tell what others think of it. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the paper saying Caninemys is a synonym of Stupendemys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that. I read it. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Huinculsaurus (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we 100% put dire wolf into Aenocyon?
it has been proposed that C. dirus to belong to the genus Aenocyon, but the phylogenetic tree still regards it as canis. So I wonder if we can 100% move this to Aenocyon or still call it dire wolf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean the tree from Perri et al., what you are missing is that Lycaon and Cuon are closer to Canis familiaris than Canis adustus and Canis mesomelas, and these latter two should really be called Lupulella. In that case it absolutely makes sense to call the dire wolf Aenocyon because otherwise Canis is polyphyletic. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we 100% put Platypterygius australis into Longirostria?
Well Longirostria is proposed as a subgenus of Platypterygius also so I wonder if we can still put P. australis into Platypterygius? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nobody uses the name Longirostria. You could use Myopterygius if you wanted to but it's pending further research. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are some taxonomic problems
About these fossil species.

Hyla goini and Hyla miocenica, they were named before Dryophytes was split from Hyla, and now the genus Hyla is absent from the Americas. and they are from Florida, so can we move them to Dryophytes? (Even AmphibiaWeb still treat species in Dryophytes species as Hyla and species in Lithobates as Rana)

Morone ionkoi from Miocene of Moldova, this was named at the time when Dicentrarchus is treated as a subgenus of Morone, but now Dicentrarchus is split as a full genus.so can we call it Dicentrarchus ionkoi?

Salmo australis, this species was found in Pleistocene of Mexico. but the genus Salmo is absent from Mexico, I saw an article on Google Books that it refers it to Oncorhynchus, a genus that can be found in Mexico. can we call it O. australis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're referring species to genera on the basis of geography? I'm afraid that doesn't work in this day and age. Especially not using extant ranges to refer extinct species. Extinctions happen, you know. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring them by taxonomy, see above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The crux of your first and third referrals: "The genus Hyla is absent from the Americas." "The genus Salmo is absent from Mexico." If that's not geography I don't know what is.


 * Clearly, no referrals can be concretely made unless you perform a proper phylogenetic analysis. Yes you can call those species anything you want, doesn't mean that the name is going to be the most parsimonious one. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So what is the best placement of them? I would call Salmo australis Oncorhynchus australis because the genus is absent from Mexico. also on the parrot Nandayus vorohuensis, but Nandayus is a synonym of Aratinga so I would call it A. vorohuensis. What about you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with your reasoning for Salmo/Oncorhynchus australis. I think the case for Aratinga is stronger but again you'd need research to verify that. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Why isn’t Geophryne put in the page 2015 in paleontology?
This genus is a replacement for Pseudacris nordensis, an extinct frog from Miocene.

I felt weird that why isn’t the genus’s name being put on the page?

Is it because it was just like papers made by Changyu Yun?

I know Changyu Yun, the one that calls Dynamoterror dubious and named “Teihivenator”. But “Teihivenator”’s paper contains plagiarized material from the Theropod Database and appears to be published in a predatory journal.

In the Deviantart user Albertonykus’ journals i do not see the Yun’s study such as papers of Dynamoterror being “invalid” and “Teihivenator. What do you think about this?

So do you think Geophryne is a valid publication? And should it being put on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 12:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Geophryne" is not registered with the ICZN therefore it is not valid. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

So what do you think about Yun's paper on Dynamoterror and "Teihivenator"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not fond of papers written without firsthand examination of the fossils, let's leave it at that. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And what about the new starling Dobrosturnus? Is it valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no registration yet and there is no evidence that it will be registered. I doubt it. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Also in the pages like 2009 in paleontology I do not see genera like Euleiognathus, Ikiculter, Coreoperca maruoi, Genypterus valdesensis, Abruzzoichthys, and Aethesia. But their papers are seen on Bioone and Springer. So can I safely say that they are registered by ICZN?
 * Just because a paper is published in a reputable source doesn't mean they're properly registered. I looked up the names you gave me and none of them are registered. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

But there is a page in Wikipedia called Aethesia. Also those genus is also mentioned in subsequent papers after those. So can we leave the page Aethesia and make those pages as full pages because they are not nomen dubium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the exception is if the journal is also printed. I don't know if the particular issue of the Journal of Herpetology where Aethesia was published was printed but it seems like it. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; Huinculsaurus (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Soooooo I wonder if I can create pages like Abruzzoichthys and Ikiculter even if it's not published by ICZN but retained as valid (I mean they are not nomen dubium) genus pages because they are mentioned in subsequent papers?
 * I don't know, I assume those journals are printed. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So it's safe to say that I create pages like Abruzzoichthys and Euleiognathus.

Mosasaurus PR revamped
Hi Lythronaxargestes,

The ping system seems to be broken, hence why I'm contacting you via talk page. I want to notify you that I've revamped the Mosasaurus PR for another push towards GA/FA now that I've finished with much of the work that kept me too busy months earlier. Since you were the major reviewer in the previous PR, I'm wondering if you may be able to take a look at the article again. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  15:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - sorry, I saw your previous ping but forgot to respond. Still happy to provide further comments. However, I'm assuming a fair amount of text has changed so it'll take me some time to read through it again (plus the sections that I didn't review previously). Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think too much has changed; I've largely done a bit of trimming and addressing some of your comments I did not address earlier. At the moment, the big question would probably be whether my changes to the Description section (especially skull) would be sufficient enough, given I tried to be concise and avoid the amount of technicality that would require a lay reader to carry a medical dictionary. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  16:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start there first. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for your share to Limusaurus, introduced: "This little dinosaur may seem inconspicuous, but there are many interesting aspects to it. All known specimens were found stuck in what appears to have been mud pits formed by the footprints of giant dinosaurs (which gave it its name). while it had teeth when juvenile, these were entirely lost as it grew up, a feature only known from a few other animals. Adults appear to have been herbivorous, though it belonged in a group of otherwise carnivorous dinosaurs. In addition, its unusual hands were also thought to have implications for bird evolution, but this idea has fallen out of favour."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's TFA! Thanks, didn't notice, haha. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Dinosaur size
Hello i saw you reverted my edits on dinosaur size. Did you read my information because the edit you reverted it to is out dated and flat out wrong. Thanks! Jakegaming7788 Jakegaming7788 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're shrinking ranges. I don't see how that is useful when you're excluding results. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 13:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I put up the ranges on many ceratopsians and sauropods only thing i shrunk was some hadrosaur sizes edmontosaurus a was at 3-13 tons and 3 tons is a bit ridiculous so i looked on the page and it said 6.6 which sounded a bit better Jakegaming7788 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Sorry to barge in here, although I am kind of already involved in this) If you change the sizes, you need to provide new reliable sources to back up the new numbers (unless the sizes on the page don't match the information in the sources). Dinosaur mass estimation is difficult and usually imprecise, and there are a variety of methods, each producing different results, sometimes even different results from the same method between different authors, which is why ranges can appear ridiculous. Also, it's strongly recommended that you fill out a brief edit summary each time you make an edit, so people have an idea of what changes you made and why. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

About the taxonomy of Veterupristisaurus
Veterupristisaurus milneri is classified as a Carcharodontosaurid theropoda know from the Jurassic, that's what the original paper says. I also saw the phylogeny of Lusovenator santosi places it as a non-Carcharodontosaurid Carcharodontosaurian. by your opinion is it safe to say that Veterupristisaurus should still classified as a Carcharodontosaurid instead of a non-Carcharodontosaurid Carcharodontosaurian?

wait, the patagotitan isn't even the biggest living organism? huh, today i learned
title

Something about Apodops
Apodops pricei is considered as a nomen dubium in a preprint last year, but it's just a preprint so can we still consider it to be valid?
 * Well, yes. But the existing literature does point out a need for further study. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this paper still regard Bonapartesaurus as a member of Saurolophini tribe?
The Ajnabia paper says it was a Kritosaurini Saurolophine, but I wonder if this paper still says Bonapartesaurus is a member of Saurolophini just like the 2017 paper because I can't get access to the paper.
 * It doesn't say because the point of the paper isn't to make taxonomic judgments anyway. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Something about Haplocheirus said as a Compsognathid
You kno…Haplocheirus is said as a Compsognathid ONLY in the Hesperornithoides paper, if you see subsequent paper of alvarezsaur phylogeny such as the papers of Nemegtonykus, Shishugounykus and Trierarchuncus you can see all of them placing Haplocheirus as an basal Alvarezsaur NOT Compsognathid, so if I can say I can fix the taxobox on the Haplocheirus page?
 * No. There is uncertainty and the taxobox accommodates both options. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think by those subsequent papers who still classifies Haplocheirus as a Alvarezsauroid, Haplocheirus is currently an Alvarezsauroid.
 * But did they refute the Hesperornithoides paper? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

They do not mention Troodontids, but I think because those subsequent Phylogenetic studies places Haplocheirus as a Alvarezsauroid so I think it is currently an Alvarezsauroid not Compsognathid.
 * Well, they are not run on compatible datasets. There is no comparison to be made. The point of those papers isn't even to test the phylogenetic position of Haplocheirus. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

So is it safe that we treat Haplocheirus as an Alvarezsauroid still? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not saying it's not an alvarezsauroid. But nuance is necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Something about Eleutherornis
"Although it was originally referred to the Psilopterinae (Angst et al. 2013), it seems moreadvisable to consider it as Phorusrhacidae incertae sedis (Angst& Buffetaut, 2017). Mayr (2017) has doubted the phorusrhacid affinities of Eleutherornis cotei without providing any substantialmorphological evidence to support his views, which seem to bebased mainly on biogeographical rather than anatomical grounds"

This is from the Macrornis paper in 2021, so I wonder if we can retain the page's taxobox as as a Phorusrhacidae?
 * This is indeed one paper, and so is Mayr. I don't know enough about this literature. But I don't see any reason to change the taxobox. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Dzharatitanis is not a Rebbachisaurid
https://www.peapaleontologica.org.ar/index.php/peapa/article/view/Pdf

This says Dzharatitanis is a Titanosaur instead of Rebbachisaurid, so I wonder if this paper is like the Yun's papers that are informal?

If it's informal then it's still an Rebbachisaurid.
 * What? No. This is in a legitimate journal from legitimate authors. It was never going to stay a rebbachisaurid in the first place, the description does a poor job of justifying such a position. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 13:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

So I wonder if it's not 100% a Titanosaur?
 * I don't remember how many times I've told you that "100%" is not an appropriate way to describe any taxonomic conclusion. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting the paper, quite a quick turnaround time (or maybe I've just lost my sense of it). I've incorporated it into the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Shaochilong is not the same as Chilantaisaurus
Someone before edited the Chilantaisaurus page and makes Shaochilong as a synonym with no references, I think because they are known from the same formation so this is the reason why this happens. Shaochilong is not the same as Chilantaisaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 21:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't trust Yun's papers
I visited Albertonykus ' journals on Deviantart that there is no Yun's papers because those papers are informal, like the paper of "Teihivenator" in 2017, but "Teihivenator" is informally named.
 * (talk page lurker) Please take the time to sign your posts. It makes following conversations much more accurate on a wiki format.  In regards to Yun, to you have reliable sources (citable sources) that point to unreliability for the Yun papers?-- Kev  min  § 01:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Bagarius gigas age
Bagarius gigas (Gunther) is described from Indonesia the fossil age is interpreted as Eocene but later doubted, thisLook at this, suggests that B. gigas is a Pleistocene species but the study isn't included in the 2020 in paleoichthyology page and it doesn't say much about Bagarius gigas but they gave an fossil image for us.

Guarinisuchus is a synonym of Hyposaurus derbianus
I wonder if it's not 100% synonymous... see Jouve's papers to find out (although the synonymy is mentioned twice but those are only Jouve's papers)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

GA for Mosasaurus
It's been over a few weeks since the PR for Mosasaurus concluded without a reviewer initiating GA review for the article. But since the PR essentially went over everything about the article, would you by any chance be open to GA reviewing the article and streamlining the process very quickly (rationale supported by the contents of the PRs), given that you have already given the deepest review on the article?

Thanks! Macrophyseter &#124; talk  14:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can also give it the final GAN look over now if you feel like you've waited too long, . FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be much appreciated! Macrophyseter &#124; talk  14:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Argh, I missed this, sorry. I can support at FAC but I think I've spent enough time on this article that a fresher set of eyes is helpful for GA... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add anything, I'm not the freshest either, hehe, but that'll sure come at FAC. I feel it probably needs extra "padding" to avoid something like what happened at Bajadasaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, I've tried to address jargon to some extent in my review but probably not to the extent that all potential reviewers would be happy! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

"Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur (2014)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur (2014). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the synonymy of Latenivenatrix and Nomingia 100% or not?
Since last year we did not found any resurrected non-avian dinosaur genera and in fact we got a who bunch of synonyms… the recent synonymy of Latenivenatrix and Nomingia I wonder if it is or not 100%, if so we must merge these pages if not… hmm, let's wait until what other phylogenetic trees says.
 * Strong case for Nomingia given that there are identical bones. But naturally with all of these things we must wait for consensus. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

So the best is that we must leave both two pages for now.
 * It would probably best to wait for at least one paper with different authors that agrees with these findings. But yeah, the case seems pretty strong for Nomingia. American troodontid taxonomy seems to be in flux, so it's probably more subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

About the user Tisquesusa
He created a lot of articles about prehistoric animals… but he frequently uses fossilworks as a reference, which some information may not be a reliable, or outdated information.

for example, Tisquesusa edited the Sebecus page befor but re-added the other two species that is formerly in the genus but now they are thought to be distinct genus. (I still frequently see recent papers of Notosuchians papers with Sebecus mentioning huilensis and Querejazus) you can see the page's history versions to find out.
 * Well, they're blocked. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The current consensus is that Sebecus contains only the type species, although we do see some others still regarding huilensis and Querejazus within the genus.

Acamptonectes
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 18, 2021. 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/September 18, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Quilmesaurus is not a nomen dubium
The page says Quilmesaurus may be a nomen dubium, but I found out many subsequent studies and Phylogenetic trees that do not put a bracket on Quilmesaurus so it's currently not.
 * may. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you and the team today for Acamptonectes, introduced: "This article is the first "official" WP:WikiProject Palaeontology collaboration, and the first FAC about an ichthyosaur, a group of prehistoric marine reptiles which were convergently similar to dolphins. Having been named relatively recently, not much has been published on it (not even a size estimate), so most info available about it is summarised here."! - Modest DYK contribution on the same page Protestant Church, Borgholzhausen, a place of memories - more on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

About Bravoceratops being headlined in the Sierraceratops paper
The Sierraceratops paper says that Bravo forms a clade with Sierraceratops and Coahuilaceratops. and the Sierraceratops paper do not say that it was a nomen dubium.

Bravoceratops has been said as a nomen dubium in the paper of Navajoceratops and Terminocavus, which they say that the roof is turned upside down. I asked about Bravoceratops last year and the answer is that Bravoceratops' validity will depends on whether other authors disagree or not because the paper is very new that time.

I can't get access to the whole paper, the paper also mentions Navajoceratops and Terminocavus.so is it safe that I say it's like Brontomerus, which is called invalid in 2012. But the authors replied on a blog saying that how it was hastily declared invalid but for the authors likely isn't. And to other authors like Mannion did not support it to be a nomen dubium so it's currently not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Diagnosis of Ornithodesmus
Dinosaurs of Great Britain and the role of the Geological Society of London in their discovery: basal Dinosauria and Saurischia (2007)

I can't get the paper but I want to find out the diagnosis of Ornithodesmus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have that information. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)