Talk:Ceratopsia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleCeratopsia was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Untitled

To all the anons who keep contributing to this article: I don't care whether Ceratopsia or Ceratopia is used, but there should be only ONE article discussing them, not two. So be a little bit responsible and focus on one article. This article should be locked. Phlebas 23:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please vote:

Ceratopia:

Ceratopsia:

This is sort of an important issue that hasn't seen any play since last year... i'm gonig to take it over for discussion at Wikiproject dinosaurs.Dinoguy2 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No brainer really - historically there have been all sorts of guffs in naming plants and animals, misspellings, what is published takes precedence. This is highlighted by the use of greek/latin/aboriginal/amerind/anagrams etc now. Especially with the latter there is no 'correct' syntax so what the author says goes.

Considerations of precedence are relevant when a binomial name is attributed to a single concrete object, like a holotype. When higher taxa than the genus implicit in the binomial name, are named, precedence becomes irrelevant. There are no official rules governing the names of taxa above the level of family — and everyone has always called any higher level taxon as it pleased him. If I am at liberty to call the group "Cornufacies" or "XYZ", why am I not free to call them by a correct name?--MWAK (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratopia

The full text of Ceratopia, as of my redirect: Ceratopia (ser-a-TOP-ee-ah) or Ceratopsia is a group of herbivorous and possibly omnivorous beaked dinosaurs that evolved during the Cretaceous in what is now Asia, and then spread to North America where they grew in size and developed elaborate horns and neck frills. The horns may have been used for display, defense, and combat with other members of the same species. The frills were probably too fragile for defense, and may have been used for display or thermoregulation

Early members such as Psittacosaurus were bipedal and had very small frills. This group later gave rise to a subgroup, the Coronosauria ("crowned lizards"), which were quadrupedal, much larger, and frequently horned. The coronosaurians include earlier ceratopsids like Protoceratops, and the Ceratopsidae like Centrosaurus and Triceratops.

The paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh originally named the group "Ceratopsia" in 1890, which has an incorrect Greek ending. While "Ceratopia" is linguistically correct, and thus preferred by many taxonomists; "Ceratopsia" has chronological precedence and is more widely used, probably because of the association with Triceratops. Since no official authority like the ICZN regulates higher level zoological taxa, there is no official answer.

In either case, the name means "horned face", from the Greek keras ("horned") and ops ("face").

Jaws

Personally, I miss some information about the physiology of these dinosaurs. What traits did they have that made them so successful? Duck billed dinsaurs had special jaws which made it possible for them to chew their food. Did ceratopsians had the same kind of jaws too, or even improved versions of them? Since they were some of the last to evolve, they should have some advanced traits lacking in other members of ornitischia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.196.189 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 June 2006 193.217.196.189

GA review by [[User:Mmoyer|Mmoyer

Wow! This is the best GA nominee I've seen yet. I have no suggestions for improvement, and GA awarded! Good job! Mmoyer 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagaceratops

Bagaceratops appears twice on the cladogram--once under Bagaceratopsidae and then again under Protoceratopsidae. Bagaceratopsidae seems like a no-brainer to me, if this article does accept its validity, except that the Bagaceratops page lists it under Protoceratopsidae... somebody who is a little more knowledgeable in Ceratopsian taxonomy needs to take a look at this. 68.205.68.57 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the reason for the discrepancy looks like it's Gobiceratops. The authors of Gobi found it to clade with Baga basally to Proto. Obviously, this was not recovered in the other, earlier cladograms on the page. Gobi is a pretty new find so it's a wait and see game to see if the Gobi+Baga clade is recovered in future studies. What we should do with this, I don't know. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratopsian with two nose horns

Is anyone aware of further sources on the Utah Ceratopsian discovered in 2002/announced in 2006? [1][2] The description given, mentioning two nose horns, makes me think it may be the animal displayed here, at the Royal Tyrrell Museum: [3], but I can't find any hint of its name. Our article here does not seem to list it, judging by the absence of any Utah Ceratopsians. Should we add it, even without a name? JN466 03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's bound to be one of at least a couple of new genera in press, so it's best to let it be for the moment. J. Spencer (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

omnivorous ceratopsians

surely the recent evidence of this topic should be mentioned, psittacosaurus has had bones found in its stomach area, the jaws are like that of an omnivore then a herbivore etc

Nope, shouldn't be mentioned yet as, as far as I know, none of it has been officially described or published on. Maybe in a year or two... Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with Quills, this theory should be included since both are realistic and have no evidence against them. The Paleontological world needs to move on from old stereotypes. You just can't ignore the fact that triceratops had an omnivore's jaws. There's no evidence against it. Also, bones have been found in the stomachs of many ceratopsians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.176.213 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's unpublished informed speculation at this point. See No original research. Also, which ceratopsians have bones in their gut contents? All I can find is the reference to one possible Psittacosaurus at Mark Witton's site. Provided that the report he's thinking of is accurate (not misinterpreted/misidentified, overblown, or a taphonomic artifact), this is not many ceratopsians, nor is it honestly necessarily compelling for the rest of the group. J. Spencer (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bones have been found in the stomach of Pachyrhinosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus was also found to have quills, it hasn't been officially published yet, but that will be a matter of time, and since those two were omnivores and had quills, saying the rest didn't would be arguring for a unique specialization that you have no proof for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.88.78 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to the papers with this new information on Pachyrhinosaurus, please. J. Spencer (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I agree that ceratopsians were probably at least partially omnivorous. The psittacosaur gut contents don't lie. They also don't exist for the purposes of an encyclopedia because they haven't been officially announced and published. Wikipedia, and all encyclopedias, must by their nature always be one step behind the bleeding edge of the science because the standards are too high to allow internet rumors as valid sources. If you don't like it this isn't the web site for you.
I'd also like to know where you're getting this info about bones in ceratopsian stomach contents other than Psittacosaurus.
Not to violate Assume Good Faith, but I'd also look at this editor's recent act of wholesale racist vandalism to the Nigersaurus article as a testament to his level of scientific thinking and willingness to improve Wikipedia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek of 'Ceratopsia'

Actually, while "Ceratopsia" is incorrect Attic Greek, it is correct from the Koine onwards, meaning "horned visage", from "opsis". So the debate is, from my point of view, pointless. After all, newer forms of Greek have often been used for scientific terms (sometimes with comic effect, e.g. "oligopsony"). Causantin (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's derived from Ceratops and not from "Ceratopsis" it's still incorrect. 144.178.207.62 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should include a mention of the clade Cerapoda in this article.

We should include a mention of the clade Cerapoda in this article.

It would probably be better if someone more knowledgeable than myself did this. Thanks.

-- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ceratopsia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ceratopsia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I was a bit surprised when I realized this article was GA-class. The reassessment process is one I generally don't feel the need to use; Rajasaurus is another dinosaur article that probably doesn't meet the standard nowadays, but I don't think it's a pressing issue to de-list it. But it's on a much less important topic, and is pretty close to GA, whereas this article is nowhere near it, and on one of the major groups of Ornithischia. I looked at the GA review, and to my horror it was passed without a single suggestion, the reviewer merely praising it giving it an instant pass. To rectify this decision which does not at all hold up today, I've decided I need to file it for delisting, and hopefully somebody will improve and get it back here some day, deservedly. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In a few spots, such as in the first two sentences of the history section, I had to read multiple times to understand (I was unsure whether Hayden conducted the 1855 expedition). Later in that same section, Cope's dichotomy of Ceratopsidae and Agathaumidae is completely beyond my understanding. In the classification section, the definition of Coronosauria causes confusion, as it's at odds with its placement in two of the phylogenetic trees.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Didn't check every word against MOS:WTW, but no wordings stood out as poor to me. However, it has a discouraged layout in its use of multiple extremely short sections under their own subheaders.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    For the most part it's good, but the sources for omnivory are questionable. Ref 38 was not only a post on Flickr, but it also no longer even exists, so it has to be removed anyway. This just leaves the two-decade old Dinosaur Mailing List post by Naish. Now that's certainly a valid source, but in absence of even a mention in the actual literature I don't think it warrants inclusion.
    C. It contains no original research:
    The article is full of a variety of unsourced statements or whole paragraphs, most extensively throughout the Classfication section. At least one sourced statement is, additionally, unsupported by the given citation, so far as I can tell (that Aquilops could potentially be a leptoceratopsid, protoceratopsid, or ceratopsid.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Everything is to my knowledge fine in this regard. One could check the anatomy section against all its sources, but this seems excessive.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    The palaeobiology section in particular is woefully inadequate, not covering certain topics at all (such as integument, despite having an image on the subject), and covering some others with literal two-sentence sections. The anatomy section makes no mention at all of postcrania. Nothing on the topic of ceratopsian is present beyond the barrest of details in the classification section. Lastly, the history section covers up to 1876 before dropping off a cliff with the exception of an unsourced, short, hard to understand note about ceratopsids (the only group even covered, since we didn't go into the 20th century to talk about the others).
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    As mentioned above a lack of detail is the main issue, but talking about three different phylogenetic matrices for no apparent reason, given two are over a decade old, is in my eyes going into excessive detail about the relationships of a few basal members of the group.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    The problems the article has stem from being written and reviewed too long ago, so this is unsurprisingly not an issue in this case.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Most of the images are fine (though the skin impression image is a bit lost without a section), but the Montanoceratops and Psittacosaurus images are both inaccurate, the history section would be better served by an image of a specimen from the time, and the taxobox image does a poor job of showing the appearance of the animal shown.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Given it fails over half of the sub-criteria (and is far from meeting three of the criteria), the conclusion of a fail is obvious.

I could go on to pick on various individual statements, but I don't think it's necessary in light of how poorly it already fares just looking at the GA criteria. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some support and no objections to the demotion over at WT:DINO, so I'll complete the demotion given how far it is from meeting criteria. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Ceratopsomorpha in Article

Ceratopsomorpha was named in 1998 in the description of Zuniceratops, to describe a clade made up of Zuniceratops, Turanoceratops and Ceratopsia. This grouping is supported in most cladistic analysises since, but has only been used as a name twice, once in 2010 and another time in 2013. Should we still use the term. I personally believe we should. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(All) Realated To Rhinos

Ceratopsians are Actually Related To Rhinos. Every Entire Species Of Ceratopsians Are Definitely Related To Rhinos And Also Have Have The Same Sound Of a Elephant. (Except The Earliest Known Species That Is The Only Reptile-Like Hebvione That Looks Almost Or Clearly Nothing Like Rhinos Is “Yinlong Downsi”.) 2601:406:5000:BE80:CC9E:18B6:9BCB:18A7 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ceratopsia"