Talk:Chilesaurus/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Chilesaurus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Further Reading
I added the National Geographic article link, which includes additional information from the author of the referenced Nature research paper, graphic, et al. If there is a better way to reference or include the article, please let me know.Jcardazzi (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
indifferent runner
How can anyone know the dinosaur was indifferent? Regarding indifferent runner where the definition of indifferent means: "having no particular interest or sympathy; unconcerned." Do you mean not a "fast" runner? Jcardazzi (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
- Well, the word also means "mediocre". But I'll rephrase.--MWAK (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
What to do about Baron and Barrett
Obviously, our lead still says that Chilesaurus is a theropod, in conflict with Baron and Barrett, as does the taxobox. For the sake of consensus and completionism, we could move Chilesaurus to "indeterminate Dinosauria". I've seen much informal criticism of Baron and Barrett, however, noting that the analysis seems dubious. None of that is sufficient to entirely supplant the opinion of a peer-reviewed paper, of course... Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- The criticism is that it doesn't adequately test it though; the idea that it could be an ornithischian is certainly still on the table, we just simply can't say at this point. I agree we should avoid being committal beyond Dinosauria. Lusotitan (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've moved the taxobox accordingly. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- In this regard, it could be nice to show two cladograms that show different interpretatons... Also, the lead still states it is a theropod... FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Does it? Not on my end! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've gone and edited the article in the time between FunkMonk and your replies. I've tried to make it as neutral as possible regarding its taxonomic placement. Lusotitan (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'll add in both cladograms. IJReid discuss 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Does it? Not on my end! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)