This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oviraptorosauria article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
It is possible that in the future, new specimens of already-known oviraptorosaur genera will be found with feather impressions. This would place the oviraptorosaurs, along with the therizinosaurs, in the Aves. Also, Paraves would be synonymous with Maniraptora.
Only if using the apomorphy-based definition of Aves (that is, if you define Aves to mean "animal with feathers"). Anyway, why would this only happen if previously-known genera are found with feathers? Several species already preserve them, like Caudipteryx and Protarcharopteryx. Also, some paleontologists, including osome of the foremost experts on oviraptorosaurs (Osmolska, etc.), think they're avians based just on skeletal features.
While I personally favor an apomorphy-based definition of Aves, most paleontologists use a node-based definition (Archaeopteryx+modern birds). Therefore, if oviraptorosaurs are birds, it has to be shown that they're more advanced than Archaeopteryx (which, again, Osmolska et al. have attempted to do).
Dinoguy222:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Compromise in anatomy
I like the way this has been handled, J. But maybe we could go just a step further and include this type of material in a separate section (like "Technical description") at the bottom of the article? That way the information will be here, and your average reader will not get turned off and give up reading because they think it's over their heads.
Dinoguy2 (
talk)
14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Not bad. Ok, let's do it. I'll volunteer to write the non - technical anatomy part for Oviraptorosauria, then see if you think it's readable enough, ok?
Jbrougham (
talk)
14:42, 19 January 2008 (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.
There was support for the merge at
WT:DINO, but no discussion on the relevant
talk page.
The user proposing the merge elected to close the merge after five days of no additional activity.
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.