Talk:Megalosaurus

[[Category: good articles|Megalosaurus]] Talk:Megalosaurus/GA1

FA time?

Seeing how much info is in the article, and how little info I know of isn't how about we try to get it to FA soon (preferably during the first round of wikicup 2014, which I am competing in, but whenever its ready is also fine. Also, there are two article that I nominated for GA that need reviewing). The only problem would be the older refs that have a name as the publisher, what should we do with them? Iainstein (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that much more dramatic changes may be proposed during such a review. And it is rarely fruitful to argue with FA reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be understood that a FA-proces would probably result in the total removal of the species section — which means that the article would become basically very flawed, given the historical function of the genus. The older references are just fine as they are: older books were often just brought to the printer without any company in the modern sense being involved.--MWAK (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If that is so, should we even ever nominate it for FA, or at least until all species are reclassified (which might also be never)? Iainstein (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that with a genus like this, where so little is known, and the history is very complicated, when FA people take a look at it, they would want most of it simplified, or cut out. Take a look at this FA I nominated once for example, which was hell to get through: [1] Unless you're very experienced with this sort of thing, and know all the FA tricks, it is likely to fail. I'd get some experience with less complicated articles first. This could need a new size comparison image, though. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Awesome idea!!!!

I came up with a completely great idea. What If someone could code a template that would allow us to collapse the Species section, or the sections inside it, so that only people that want to see it can see it. Anyone here good a coding? Iainstein (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This already exists and is used in the taxobox: the same code should work in the main text. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think only the lists should be hidden, not the text. No one has complained aout that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• On this note, how come "| species_authority = Mantell, 1827" doesn't show up in the taxobox? FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Aha, it should probably be "| binomial_authority = ..." it is that way for any "speciesbox". IJReid ^discuss 04:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I was looking at the Tyrannosaurus taxobox for answers in vain. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This always bothered me about the species box which is otherwise very handy format. The Species line and the Binomial name sections are double redundant (the phrase binomial name is redundant and the section contains identical info as species). The species line should be dropped and the phrase "binomial name" should be changed to Species name. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to suggest improvements, maybe here?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Early Reconstructions

I feel the Earliest Reconstructions section should go under history, not description, but I'd be curious to hear input from others before making such a big change. Lusotitan 23:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree. An easy way to do this would be to just move the Description header down to the Modern Description section and re-rank the subsections. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

At least Ankylosaurus also covers early/inaccurate restorations under history of discovery, though in very short text. FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspect sentence

"In 2014, fossils from the Philippines were identified as dinosaurian in nature, and American palaeontologist John J. Flynn suspected that they belonged to Megalosaurus.[33]"

i checked with Mr John J Flynn in Octobe3r 2017, and he denies such an attribution. Also, the reference to TahoNews is non-existent. In the Philippines, "taho" is a soybean-based curd or whey; TahoNews is not considered by us as a trusted reference.

124.104.124.8 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)j yap, 16 Nov 2017

Broken Speciesbox

Someone fix this mess. 2604:2000:F604:7500:3CDB:A76E:504E:69B4 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the speciesbox for now, it will be a test of time to see if Inaccurateboi420 tries to make their image change again to see how long the fix stands. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Not “ prehistoric reptiles”

Can we please substitute “ prehistoric reptiles” by something suitable? Dinosaurs are/were not reptiles. Thanks.

Dinosaurs (including birds) are members of the natural group Reptilia. Their biology does not precisely correspond to the antiquated class Reptilia of Linnaean taxonomy, consisting of cold-blooded amniotes without fur or feathers.2603:6080:21F0:6140:8133:E053:18EF:3E2C (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hypodigm

One of the illustrations on this article, by Slate Weasel, has the "hypodigm" of the specimen color-coded white and "other specimens" color-coded blue. My understanding is that a hypodigm is all the material of a particular taxon, so I'm not sure what distinction is being drawn there—by definition, anything that is not part of the hypodigm of Megalosaurus does not belong to Megalosaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

From context I think "syntype" is meant. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense. If we're being technical, it would be lectotype and paralectotypes—the term "syntypes" only applies if a lectotype hasn't been designated (ICZN article 73.2.2). I'm not sure if making a distinction between lectotype+paralectotypes and other referred specimens is all that useful, though—wouldn't it make more sense to indicate which specimen is the lectotype and treat all referred specimens the same? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There might be some historical significance as far as Buckland's description is concerned but I'm not opposed to your alternative either. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't Humanum in "Scrotum Humanum" be lowercased in the infobox?

this is the proper way for scientific names to be spelled and it's lowercased elsewhere on the page so shouldn't it be lowercased in the infobox? Crylophosaurus (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It has been argued it was never even meant as a binomial, so it isn't really a taxonomic synonym, and doesn't belong in the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

so it should be removed altogether? Crylophosaurus (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say so, there's some discussion of the issue here, with citations that could be used:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)