Talk:Tsaagan

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.

Tsaagan vs. Tsagaan

Is the title of this article correct? The mongolian word for "white" is Tsagaan (цагаан), which would suggest that the animal should be named the same. --Latebird 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but they named it Tsaagan anyway. T. bataar should also be T. baatar. Mongolian words tend to get mis-spelled by paleontologists I guess. Dinoguy2 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title is correct, and yes, the name is incorrect. Someone involved in naming it will probably say something about this issue at some point, but for now it's a really odd typo. J. Spencer 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok then, good to know. --Latebird 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICZN Article 32.5.1 seems to mean that the name cannot be corrected, because "in the original publication itself" it just says "ETYMOLOGY: Tsaagan, Mongolian for white; mangas, Mongolian for monster." and doesn't contain any further evidence that this is wrong. A dictionary of Mongolian would presumably count as an "external source of information" and therefore be inadmissible. David Marjanović (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References (to be integrated into the text)

Not sure if it contains any helpful info, but just to bulk up the reference count/duplicity of sources. [1] Shrumster 04:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Generally, the reference section should contain only the primary scientific sources, but news stories are ok in external links as long as they don't go dead too quickly (and are accurate--I'd say a vast majority of news stories on dinosaurs get a whole lot of very basic facts wrong and misinterpret what the scientists say). This one seems good, though. Dinoguy2 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New species, or new genus?

According to the current text, "The fossil of Tsaagan was discovered in 1996 and first identified as a specimen of Velociraptor. After a CAT-scan in May 1998 it was concluded that it represented a new species.". Velociraptor is a genus, so if this critter was merely a new species, it would be Velociraptor mangas. Souldn't "new species" be change to "new genus"? Wardog (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, fixed it. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

What does the following mean: "Tsaagan represents the only dromaeosaurid remains (other than isolated teeth) known from the Ukhaa Tolgod region, though another dromaeosaurid, Velociraptor, is known from the same formation." FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]