Talk:Stenonychosaurus

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

Stenonychosaurus brain and intelligence

Wasn't the famous braincase reassigned to Latenivenatrix? If this is the case, the sections Brain and inner ear and The "Dinosauroid" need to be moved to that article.Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've made that point elsewhere before. Though it could be argued that what was theorised based on that braincase goes for all troodontids. And we should maybe wait until some paper makes the connection explicitly with Latenivenatrix. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

Hi there. I would like to propose that the "Dinosauroid" section of this article be split into its own article. I wrote a new article about the dinosauroid (Draft:Dinosauroid) but was unaware I had to request a split first.

I think the dinosauroid is deserving of its own article because the theory has almost surpassed its connection to Stenonychosaurus, and has since been applied to various other dinosaurs. On Wikipedia:Proposed article splits, a reason given for article splits is “when an element of an existing article gains substantial notoriety in its own right”, which I personally believe applies to the dinosauroid. Also, I didn’t want to clutter the Stenonychosaurus page with information on a tangentially related theory.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts on the matter. HannahMoss (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think it is warranted especially now that a bunch of papers specifically about it have been published. Be sure to include them, such as[1], which would expand the draft enough for any doubters to be convinced it needs splitting. If you don't have access, try WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine Ferahgo the Assassin having an interest in this, so pinging. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that article - I missed that one somehow. HannahMoss (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be worth consulting Naish's summary of this paper too, which includes some material that the editors wanted removed: [2] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Dinosauroid is clearly a noteworthy and a largely separate topic from the actual dinosaur. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support too. There's even more to say, and more references to add, than even what is in the draft. --Abstractgrant (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. Lots of info in it and more to add. It's arguably more important than the actual dinosaur. Bristledidiot (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update for the sake of an update: Thanks again for all the resources - I plan to update the article and then re-submit for consideration. My attention is ever-wandering so I tend to edit Wikipedia in fits and starts, hence the radio silence. HannahMoss (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I just became aware of this, hence my very late response, but really, I'm surprised this didn't have a separate article in the first place. The dinosauroid is clearly notable in its own right, with a lot to say about it that doesn't have to do with Stenonychosaurus per se. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Dinosauroid should have its own article. I suggest that the current article have a link entitled, “Evolutionary Theories on Dinosaur to Dinosauroid” that links directly to the new Dinosauroid article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.24.12 (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another point that argues for splitting this is that some of the fossils used as basis for the dinosauroid hypothesis are now considered Latenivenatrix, so the idea isn't attached to just Stenonychosaurus any more. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for this old but not closed proposal as much has been written on the Dinosauroid from reliable sources. While the Dinosauroid itself, by now, is only tangentially related to the paleontological dinosaur genus, so it's better to have it in a larger reception/culture article. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- this issue definitely has enough history and presence to warrant discussion on its own page, there's plenty of literature attached to it, and as pointed out already it's no longer strictly tied to a single genus since some of its base remains have been assigned to Latenivenatrix. -- Theriocephalus (talk) 08:15, 05 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

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.

Closing with no merge, without prejudice to future proposals: too soon, no consensus and fruit of the poisonous tree (see user:Patachonica). Klbrain (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last year's paper lumped Latenivenatrix into Stenonychosaurus with pretty strong support. Patachonica (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that one of two describers is co-author of the paper that suggested the synonym, and that the main describer has effectively been cancelled from palaeontology, I don't think there will be much support for separation, but will probably take a while to be sure. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, are you saying that you agree with the synonymy? Patachonica (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read the paper in question, but these things are always a bit arbitrary, determining which features that are diagnostic or not, so all that matters is really the scientific consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least one study mentions both Stenonychosaurus and Latenivenatrix as distinct taxa in this year, and the study features Currie. Intriguingly that some of the papers featuring phylogenetic trees regarding Troodon still as valid also features Currie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post the link to that study please? Patachonica (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on my talk page, that is possibly because some researchers still use the name Troodon for the Two Medicine Formation specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think some are just too stubborn to abandon the old Troodon model. I know Mortimer still lumps Stenonychosaurus, for example. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 14:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lumps Stenonychosaurus into what other genus? Patachonica (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a fact that some researchers use the name Troodon for the Two Medicine specimens, whether that has bearing on how they treat Stenonychosaurus I haven't looked into. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paper that mentions both Stenonychosaurus and Latenivenatrix is here,and Currie is one of the authors. I think he may retained the validity of Latenivenatrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 04:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only time Latenivenatrix is mentioned in that paper is in Table 3, where it is mentioned after Stenonychosaurus, separated by a slash. Both genera are given the same mass estimate and entry in the table. Why else would they be grouped together if they are not treated as synonymous? (although the separation of Nanosaurus and Othnielosaurus and Ornithomimus and Dromiceiomimus raises some eyebrows, but that's probably not relevant here) 2001:4453:576:8200:2D50:209F:427D:EBC0 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant with "referred to in passing" on my talk page. Given that it's a not an in depth look at the issue, it doesn't hold any weight, as it doesn't actually give an opinion on the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also not put much weight to Currie being a co-author. He tends to be featured on the papers of any of his students, as an overseer and not always active contributor. He's had feet on both sides of a lump/split before, like with Tarbosaurus, Nanotyrannus, and now here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.