This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
The contents of the Diplodocimorpha page were
merged into
Diplodocoidea on 2022-08-27. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Diplodocoidea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "TMB2015":
From
Diplodocimorpha: Tschopp, E.; Mateus, O.; Benson, R.B.J. (2015). "A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda)". PeerJ. 3: e857.
doi:
10.7717/peerj.857.{{
cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡01:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Diplodocoidea and Diplodocimorpha have nearly identical content, usually differing only in the inclusion of Haplocanthosaurus and sometimes not even that. There is pretty much no value in having separate pages for the two clades, and keeping them separate would be somewhat redundant and waste editors' time with two pages to maintain rather than one. Diplodocoidea is both the more inclusive clade and gets eight times as many hits on Google Scholar, so Diplodocimorpha should be merged into Diplodocoidea.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
14:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think I support this, provided its not just redirected, and the content is migrated over. The main superfamily article needs some work. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Support: Per the discussion at
WT:DINO, Flagellicaudata should be merged with Diplodocoidea for the following reasons:
Flagellicaudata as an article only includes the etymology and a single cladogram.
Flagellicaudata is a node-based clade and there is little content that could be added to expand it. (
WP:N)
A similar merge was unanimously executed above for Diplodocimorpha.
Flagellicaudata only gets 224 hits on google scholar, which is much fewer than either Diplodocoidea or any of the constituent families (Rebbachisauridae, Diplodocidae, Dicraeosauridae). (
WP:N)
Flagellicaudata is only relevant in a discussion of diplodocoid systematics, which would be more effectively contained within the article for Diplodocoidea itself. (
WP:REDUNDANT)
Sub-clades that exclude only a single family do not have their own pages for other dinosaur taxa (i.e.
Pantyrannosauria,
Styracosterna,
Allosauria, etc.), and this would improve article format consistency for
WP:DINO and
WP:TREE.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.