Talk:Dinosaur#semi protection

{{Edit semi-protected|Dinosaur|answered=yes}}

let me edit I have lots of cool dino facts. 207.251.101.34 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm think we should remove the list of the different dinosaur groups in the Taxonomy section. This article is already pretty long and I think it would look better with a cladogram of the major groups. LittleJerry (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

not really something urgent but it's just so annoying to have to read individual letters like

t

h

I

s 2A00:11B1:10E0:1F34:8920:4A01:451E:DE11 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think you are right. The reader needs to be able to read and understand the article, or else the entire point is destroyed. 68.48.8.60 (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

How are Dinosaurs alive? Birds are not dinosaurs, they have no relation with dinos. Syringeful Tiger (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:All Birds are technically Dinosaurs but not all Dinosaurs are Birds. Zyxrq (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Zyxrq Yes, I've read it. But I don't understand how birds are directly dinosaurs. Syringeful Tiger (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If you use a Cladistics-based classification system, all descendants of a particular common ancestor are members of that cladistic group. Under this system, birds are considered Dinosauria (ie. dinosaurs). CMD (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Birds are Theropods and are part of the Coelurosauria clade. So technically speaking they are dinosaurs. If they weren’t then the entire Coelurosauria clade aren’t dinosaurs ExplorerKing (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, now I understood everything. Syringeful Tiger (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The Ornithoscelida Theory is more accurate and up to date than the Saurischia/Ornithischia theory. Therefore, the taxonomy section should reflect that. Also, the history section should include detail about the transition. 68.48.8.60 (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is not true, Ornithoscelida is far from universally accepted. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::It seems it's even almost forgotten again? FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Whether or not this is very accurate, this theory should be explained in the history section of the article. 68.48.8.60 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The Ornithoscelida hypothesis is still not widely accepted, and considered less parsimonious than the traditional hypothesis even when using the same dataset. See [https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac062 Norman et al. (2022)], [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35784-3 Černý & Simonoff (2023)], [https://doi.org/10.1080/14772019.2024.2346577 Fonseca et al. (2024)], etc. Even Matthew G. Baron, the lead author of the 2017 paper that first supported the Ornithoscelida hypothesis, is more cautious about that hypothesis in his 2024 Chilesaurus paper where he states that more work is needed for it. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palwor.2022.12.001 Baron (2024)] Junsik1223 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I understand that it shouldn't be included in the taxonomy section, but the theory should still be explained because it's a major theory in the history of dinosaur zoology. The same could be said for Phytodinosauria. 68.48.8.60 (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The theories shouldn't be addressed as if they are correct, but they should at least be mentioned. 68.48.8.60 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's already mentioned on the page. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Where? 68.48.8.60 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::"Research by Matthew G. Baron, David B. Norman, and Paul M. Barrett in 2017 suggested a radical revision of dinosaurian systematics. Phylogenetic analysis by Baron et al. recovered the Ornithischia as being closer to the Theropoda than the Sauropodomorpha, as opposed to the traditional union of theropods with sauropodomorphs. This would cause sauropods and kin to fall outside traditional dinosaurs, so they re-defined Dinosauria as the last common ancestor of Triceratops horridus, Passer domesticus and Diplodocus carnegii, and all of its descendants, to ensure that sauropods and kin remain included as dinosaurs. They also resurrected the clade Ornithoscelida to refer to the group containing Ornithischia and Theropoda."

:::::::::Third paragraph under the 'definition' header. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::What about the Phytodinosauria theory? 68.48.8.60 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That was never seriously considered by anyone but Robert Bakker. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It's still very popular and it's a major theory in the history of dinosaur zoology. 68.48.8.60 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Where? FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)