Talk:Sauroniops

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Low‑importance 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. Dinosaurs Low‑importance 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.

Keeping in mind that the type specimen of Sauroniops pachytholus was first described in the article published in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica and that APP articles are distributed under the terms of CC BY, I have a question: would this be alright to upload the figures used in the aforementioned APP article to Wikimedia Commons and use them to illustrate the article?--Macrochelys (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have in fact uploaded an image. Are you sure the licence also covers the images?--MWAK (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the license covers the entirety of the content of the article unless specified otherwise. --Macrochelys (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I have contacted their editors, they say everything is free, unless otherwise indicated. And the license change (in 2012) is retroactive, so it covers older issues as well. As a result, I've uploaded quite a lot of their images since. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good news indeed :o).--MWAK (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just to wonder if the 2020 paper says Sauroniops and Sigilmassasaurus are formal synonym? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are just different teams with different views, and it is unlikely to be sorted out any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also it was Carcharodontosaurus saharicus that they synonymized it with, not Sigilmassasaurus, so in any case it would be merged there. But as FunkMonk stated, there's not enough consensus for that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Sigilmassasaurus was suggested yo be a synonym of Spinosaurus, but this argument has been going on since the 90s. I don't think it'll be solved until we get much more complete remains. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]