Talk:Veterupristisaurus

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.

Name source

The article now cites the describing article, indicating the name is derived from Latin veterus, "old". However, veterus is the neuter singular of vetus, "old", and the words it is combined with are feminine (pristis) or masculine (saurus). Regardless, the correct combination of course should have resulted in a "Veteripristisaurus". That leaves us with two valid options: either not mention the etymology at all (the purist option) or stating (at least in a footnote) that it is derived from vetus (the practical option). Deceiving the reader into thinking that there would simply be a Latin adjective veterus is not a valid option.--MWAK (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should state whatever it states in the paper. Anything else is OR (even if the paper is demonstrably incorrect). Another valid option would be to mention the proposed translation but not the derivation. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a paper states a false etymology, it is simply not a reputable source on this point :o) (i.e. the paper is in that case a reputable source about what the author thought was the linguistically correct derivation, but not on the linguistic facts of the matter). Thus we are definitely not allowed to repeat patent falsehoods. Yes, indicating the correct etymology (the linguistic elements of which of course can be easily sourced) is a form of synthesis that is in principle not allowed under the OR policy. However, I would say that cases like this, where it is absurd not to give any derivation, form a reductio ad absurdum of said principle. The internal logic of an encyclopedia simply demands that in such cases we state the truth.--MWAK (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article too formal?

Some of the anatomical descriptions/terms seems unnecessarily inaccessible. Robot 0123456789 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]