Talk:Huxleysaurus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Huxleysaurus redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging with Hypselospinus

I think there are several good reasons not to merge:

Norman has not made a very good case for an identity with Hypselospinus, not showing any autapomorphies of the latter in the Huxleysaurus material.
Wikipedia is not a biology textbook. We simply provide information about concepts. The concept "Huxleysaurus" exists and we give a summation of what has been said about it in the secondary literature. If this information had fully been present in the Hypselospinus article, the principle of Summary Style would have to be applied and it would have to be split off anyway.
We have to resist the urge to consider any new article as the definitive word about a certain subject. It is the last word — but only until the next paper :o). Norman and Paul have been bickering about iguanodonts since 2007 and hopefully they'll be able to disagree for many years to come. At the moment it is too early to determine whether any scientific consensus is developing and that alone makes it incorrect to merge.--MWAK (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them seem to use cladistics either, do they? Seems like a third party would have to settle it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MWAK on the basis of keeping them separate:

Wikipedia has many article (such as Megapnosaurus) separate from (for Megapnosaurus, Coelophysis), even when almost all recent studies find the two are synonym generically.
They have only been synonymized by one author in two publications. Again with Megapnosaurus and Coelophysis, they have been synonymized by many different authors, including the describer of Megapnosaurus, and are still separate.
Finally, Huxleysaurus should not be merged with Hypselospinus because Norman shows no features shared between the two, he practically just lists off about why the autapomorphies of Huxleysaurus are not distinguishing, unintentionally trying to make Huxleysaurus a Nomen Dubium, but still not unique enough to strongly synonymize. IJReid (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the consensus seems to reject merging and the person adding the merging banner has not even put forward any argumentation in favour of it, I propose to remove the banner.--MWAK (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]