Talk:Kryptops

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

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

Palaeontology Low‑importance

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

Redundant reference to "genus"

Hi. First at all, this article is about an organism (select the definition of specie that enclose this criteria) and second, this is an example when newbie people (those away from the scientific circle) tend to confuse and use terms in a redundant and innecesary way (like "genus", specially when it refer to a single specie). I suggest to read a book of cladistic as a good start. --Diucón (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend the guidelines for monotypic genera found at WP:TOL and WP:Dinosaurs. Both state that when a genus is monotypic the article should be at the genus name. General article guidelines state that an articles opening sentence should start with the article title, hence the wording used in the articles that you have been altering.--Kev min § 03:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nonsense that get disable when it face everything that i wrote in the last message. It's clearly more plausible to make an exception to articles refering to species, like this one. I understand your point in the fact that you seems to confuse what really a "genus", "subfamily", family" means (nothing). It doesn't provide any information and nothing interesting by the way, so at this point, instead of perpetuate the artificial and waste-cysts of taxonomy, you must need to confine and delimit the really important information (it's an organism) and leave the, again, redundant one.--Diucón (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia states the bolded part of the intro should be the article title. This is a way of ensuring the article kicks off in a consistent style giving a brief summary of the topic. WP:Dino long ago settled on the idea that articles should not extend below genus level. This is because dinosaurs are almost universally known by their genus, rather than binomial, names, and this is a popular, rather than technical, encyclopedia. Monospecific families are also usually included at the genus-titled article. These are all arbitrary rules of course and you're welcome to advocate for a change, but this should best be done at the WP:Dino talk page itself, rather than unilaterally changing random articles to be inconsistent with the whole of the project. As for what this has to do with cladisitcs, I don't know. The concepts of genus and species are about as far from phylogenetic concepts as you can get, even PhyloCode doesn't attempt to touch them. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, i know the end that this discussion will have and i don't have a lot to time to deal with unfortunately. But anyway, all i can tell is that to a lot of (us, indeed) biologists and student of this carrer, that point is a really annoying one when you read articles here in Wikipedia (i see almost 100% of the people editing with amateur knowledge and now reaching that kind of consensus), so that's a relevant issue that you must deal with.--Diucón (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your point? I'm having trouble understanding what the issue is. You're saying it's redundant to give monotypic genera their own page? If so, that's why we merge them to begin with--most dinosaur genera are monotypic. It's redundant to distinguish between genera and species? Maybe so, but then the entire concept of the binomial should be thrown in the trash. Whether or not listing genera, subfamilies, etc. is interesting or not is subjective. Linnaean taxonomy exists and some of us weirdos like being able to keep track of this stuff. The fact that mot paleontologists don't isn't news or surprising, but it does cause the people keeping track headaches when things like "Silesauridae" are named (if people kept track, you'd know Lagerpetonidae existed and had priority, but because it was formerly monotypic, from an era when that was seen as ok, people forgot about it). Why have a system of nomenclature and priority in place at all when nobody can be arsed to check if somebody else deserves credit for the group they just (re)named? Knowing that monotypic groups like, say, Elopteryginae exist should be helpful to someone who finds in their analysis that Elopteryx forms a clade with say, Zanabazar, and wants to name it Zanabazarinae. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen dubium or not?

I have found 2018 papers saying it is a nomen dubium I wonder if it is true or false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]