User talk:Atlantis536

Hello, Atlantis536, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Firsfron of Ronchester 20:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you used the above term in List of dinosaur genera. Could you please point me to a peer-reviewed article which used the term? And what exactly does it mean? Thank you Na Tra (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con Mèo Ú Tim (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I have added the term in the terminology section of the article Na Tra (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con Mèo Ú Tim (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hello, Atlantis536. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Atlantis536. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am OviraptorFan, although I had been working here for a couple weeks now, I now have an account! Anyways, there are alot of dinosaur genera that haven't been placed into the scientific groups they belong in. So I have been working on putting them there so they don't remain forgotten, would you perhaps like to help me with them?OviraptorFan (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what do you mean by "placed into the scientific groups they belong in"? Atlantis536 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much dinosaurs that simply aren’t shown on the family tree lists. For example, gobiraptor wasn’t on the oviraptorid list until I added it(it was back when I still didn’t have an account and just did it anonymous) so things like that. Did that help you understand what I meant? OviraptorFan (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll try to do my best. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm done with the A's. I deliberately excluded the dubious dinosaurs. Will do the other letters soon. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now done with the B's. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did alot of the B's, except Bienosaurus. Because of that, I created the Scelidosauridae, think you can help me with that page? OviraptorFan (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks good as of now. We'll just see what the other dinosaur experts of Wikipedia would do with the page. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm done with the C's. You're doing a really good job, keep it up. I mostly put sauropodomorphs which were strangely forgotten. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atlantis536,
The doi for this ozzy boi - oops, we're not on Reddit - let's start again.
Hi Atlantis536,
The Journal of Paleontology reference you started this article with appears to be from 1999, not 2019. Its Digital object identifier appears to be unrelated to this particular article. Could you possibly explain this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because the end of the paper title is the phrase "Qantassaurus intrepidus Rich and Vickers-Rich 1999", though I may be wrong. Here's the link to the paper itself: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/new-smallbodied-ornithopods-dinosauria-neornithischia-from-the-early-cretaceous-wonthaggi-formation-strzelecki-group-of-the-australianantarctic-rift-system-with-revision-of-qantassaurus-intrepidus-rich-and-vickersrich-1999/D6FEF2CD3EC1CAAD8F41B6ED73EC356C (Click "View HTML" to access the paper full text) Atlantis536 (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that. TIL... oops, we're not on Reddit.

Thank you for explaining that. I have JSTOR and other online scholarly journal access. I'll fix that up ASAP. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Also, do you have Reddit or are you just joking? Atlantis536 (talk)

Apologies for the Reddit mention. Yes, in some ways I was just joking. I in no way meant to startle you about this. Please let me know if I can help you in any way at all about the English language Wikipedia. Peter in Australia ak --Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fukuipteryx, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

•≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 16:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent change in the Template:Sauropodomorpha, do you feel strongly about having this template (and others) expanded by default rather than collapsed? The collapsed state was requested in a recent FAC and met with agreement there. The templates are just too large and overwhelming. We can discuss at the WikiProject if you wish. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no stance. The reason I made the templates expanded is because that's how they were before and that I was unaware of that discussion. Sorry. Besides, the Theropoda and Sauropodomorpha templates, despite their size, would only show their unexpanded subsections when set as "expanded", and a subsection would only be expanded when specified on an article. For example {{Sauropodomorpha|B.}} would only expand the basal sauropod section.

Still, I could revert them if you wish. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first subsection is always expanded though, and takes a lot of space. I really would argue that we should collapse them per default, though I just see that it is possible to collapse/expand on an per-article basis ("state=collapsed"). But I can ask first at WikiProject Paleontology if you think that some editors might possibly disagree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It appears the templates were set to "autocollapse", which makes them appear collapsed even if the template is set to open on a particular subsection on a page. I guess I'll revert them to "collapsed". Atlantis536 (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you very much! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Atlantis536 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rhinorex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narindasaurus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ogresuchus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. As for why/how I'm doing this, it mostly boils down to the fact that I'm interested in paleontology myself, which is why I try to keep up with the literature (mostly by checking journal websites, but sometimes I find out from a reference in a different paper, from Dinosaur Mailing List, Twitter, or just by accident), and, taking the sheer volume of the literature into account, why I find it helpful to have a resource where all of this can be written down. But I'm glad to hear that someone besides me finds these articles useful. Regards --188.146.128.146 (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I believe the Dinosaur Mailing List found your work helpful too (If I remember correctly, they especially liked how you update the minor things about the articles themselves!) Atlantis536 (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atlantis 536. Please help me figure it out ;) What's the difference between "Gorgosaurus" and "Gorgosaur". In some places it has "SAURUS" and in some places it has "SAUR". I saw this pattern for many dinosaurs. which one is correct? and what's the difference? HamidMsv (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct, depending on the context. Gorgosaurus is the genus name, the first part of its scientific name, like the Homo in Homo sapiens. "Gorgosaur" is a common name, as "dog" is the common name of Canis lupus familiaris, but it is based on the genus name. When referring to the genus, always use the "-saurus", although you can use "saur" in informal contexts. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I forgot to check Ameghiniana recently, which is why I missed the description of Ninjatitan until someone else added it. I'm not intentionally ignoring this journal, though, and if memory serves, in the past I added several studies published there to the "year in paleontology" pages.--188.147.102.152 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you also brought this subject up in the WikiProject Palaeontology talk page, so I will also add that the horse you mentioned, Hypohippidium, seems to have been named in 1957, while 2013 seems to be just the year of the online publication on the Ameghiniana website. I tend to add examples to the articles about the last few years in paleontology and rarely edit older articles, because listing every discovery from every single year in the history of paleontology would be impossible for me.--188.147.102.152 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Again, thanks for all you've done! Atlantis536 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atlantis536. would you take a look at "Gigantoscelus" in the List of dinosaur genera. is it junior synonym or probable junior synonym of "Euskelosaurus"? (cause it has a separate page). And there's one more; in the letter E, "Euacanthus" is nomen nudum and junior synonym at the same time! is it true? Thanks. Hamidaal (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Gigantoscelus is a probable junior synonym of Euskelosaurus, which is why it has its own page. Also, a taxon can be a nomen nudum and a junior synonym at the same time. For example, "Ajancingenia" is a nomen nudum because its description was suppressed because of plaigiarism, but is also a junior synonym of Heyuannia. And please sign your comments. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment. OK! Thanks! Hamidaal (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Australotitan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australotitan is the largest dinosaur discovered in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australotitan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Australotitan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kansaignathus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of adding more content when you placed the speedy deletion notice. Now that it has more content, I removed the notice. Apologies if I've made any mistake.Atlantis536 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some paleontologists says the formation belongs to Aptian-Albian, some says it's from Turonian to Campanian. The Berthasaura page you created is said to be Late Cretaceous, but the scientific paper says it's from Early Cretaceous. What's the best to choose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the date for now. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that we will find ceratopsid genera in South America sooner or later since there have been saurolophine hadrosaurs and nodosaurs discovered in South America already? 2604:CB00:1109:2000:2DAB:D495:6A24:4266 (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is taking so long for such an important fossil genus to be given the respect of a published scientific name already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:110A:DB00:9DCE:1612:7A9A:D844 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say. But until a paper is out, you shouldn't add it to the 2022 in archosaur paleontology page. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are We ever going to discover any more anurognathid pterosaurs from the Cretaceous period soon?

http://www.aakz.com/anurognathid-in-amber.html

Is this possibly an anurognathid?

http://www.aakz.com/pterosaur-in-amber.html

Or this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuddleKing1993 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure. Also, I have doubts that those specimens are actually anurognathids, as they look too vague for identification. But until serious scientific papers are released, don't add hoax taxa anywhere on Wikipedia. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to chat with you on discord if that is the case. 98.16.29.85 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If You were to make a documentary styled story about pterosaurs, what kind of setting would you use? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd ask me, I'll document the evolution of pterosaurs, maybe lagerpetids in Triassic South America, basal pterosaurs in Triassic Italy, the pterosaurs of Solnhofen, the anurognathids and darwinopterans of Tiaojishan, the pterodactyloids of Early Cretaceous Brazil, the pteranodontians of the Western Interior Seaway, and azhdarchids around the world in the latest Cretaceous. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to remake Walking with Dinosaurs episode, Giant of the Skies, what setting and animals would you use for the world spanning story? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'll set it in the Maastrichtian instead of the Aptian-Albian, and focus on Arambourgiania instead of Tropeognathus. It would follow the pterosaur's journey from Jordan to Morocco to Tennessee.

And I'll definitely not rewrite Wikipedia and throw temper tantrums to make the site match my remake. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of animals would be featured? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arambourgiania, Ajnabia, Phosphatodraco, Tethydraco, Alcione, Chenanisaurus, and Ocepechelon. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What animals would be present in Jordan and Tennessee? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other Arambourgiania. Most of the action will take place in Morocco. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the birds to replace the Iberomesornis? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed speculative enantiornitheans. 06:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Atlantis536 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to remake Walking with Dinosaurs episode, New Blood, what setting and animals would you use? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late Triassic, South America: Herrerasaurus, Saurosuchus, Sillosuchus, and Pachagnathus. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? and what about the cynodont, dicynodont, and prosauropod? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exaeretodon for the cynodont and Ischigualastia for the dicynodont. Sillosuchus will replace Plateosaurus as it is also a large, bipedal herbivore. The whole episode will be in South America instead of North America as that is where dinosaurs really started, and also to showcase the weird non-dinosaurian wonders of the Triassic. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will there still be a prosauropod? and what other animals would be featured? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No more prosauropods and no more animals. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sauropodomorphs were not the major herbivores of Late Triassic South America, and I already have an equivalent to every animal in the original New Blood. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you use Herrerasaurus? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more primitive than Coelophysis so it's a better stand-in for an early dinosaur.Atlantis536 (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use Eoraptor instead? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herrerasaurus was a straight carnivore and the top predator of its environment, making it a perfect stand-in for Coelophysis. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to go for the most boring option possible? 162.40.240.96 (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that’s what I wanted.

Also, if you’re who I think you are, weren’t you sent to ANI for talking about fan fiction? Respectfully, please stop talking to me, unless it’s to clear up facts or information about Wikipedia. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to remake Walking with Dinosaurs episode, Death of a Dynasty, what setting and animals would you use? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same, except Acheroraptor replaces Dromaeosaurus and Triceratops replaces Torosaurus.

And can you please stop commenting? It's getting annoying. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be seven stories done like this

Episode 1: Triassic oddities and the earliest dinosaurs

Episode 2: Marine reptiles and the dawn of the age of dinosaurs proper.

Episode 3: Sauropods and other wildlife of the Morrison formation.

Episode 4: Coelurosaurs of the Yixian formation

Episode 5: Spinosaurus and the pterosaurs of the Kem Kem group

Episode 6: An Ornithischian focused story

Episode 7: Hell creek dinosaurs and K-Pg mass extinction survivors CuddleKing1993 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. What animals would you use for each? Atlantis536 (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1 is not yet decided whether to use the Chinle formation, Ischigualasto formation or Santa maria formation.

Episode 2 would have Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, Ichthyosaurus communis, Temnodontosaurus platyodon, Hybodus reticulatus, Dimorphodon macronyx, Sarcosaurus woodi, Scelidosaurus harrisonii, Coroniceras bucklandi.

Episode 3 would have Camarasaurus lentus, Supersaurus vivianae, Stegosaurus stenops, Allosaurus fragilis, Ceratosaurus nasicornis, Camptosaurus dispar, Nanosaurus agilis, Hesperornithoides miessleri, Harpactognathus gentryii, Fruitafossor windscheffeli.

Episode 4 would have Sinornithosaurus millenii, Confuciusornis sanctus, Eopteranodon lii, Caudipteryx zoui, Sinosauropteryx prima, Sinocalliopteryx gigas, Repenomamus giganticus, Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis, Beipiaosaurus inexpectus, Yutyrannus huali, Liaoningotitan sinensis.

Episode 5 would have Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, Nicorhynchus fluviferox, Apatorhamphus gyrostega, Leptostomia begaaensis, Rebbachisaurus garasbae, Carcharodontosaurus saharicus, Araripesuchus rattoides, Aegisuchus witmeri, Onchopristis numida.

Episode 6 is not yet decided, since I do not know what kind of setting to use for it.

Episode 7 would have Tyrannosaurus rex, Edmontosaurus annectens, Triceratops prorsus, Denversaurus schlessmani, Quetzalcoatlus lawsoni, Dakotaraptor steini, Ornithomimus velox, "Styginetta lofgreni", Borealosuchus sternbergii, Axestemys infernalis, Purgatorius ceratops. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to remake Walking with Beasts episode, Sabertooth, what setting and animals would you use? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that much of an expert on Cenozoic and Paleozoic topics, so please don't ask me about WWB or WWM. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should ask me about WWB, seeing as I am interested in Cenozoic topics. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey Magnatyrannus. Long time no chat. I wonder what caused your sudden reform. Just six months ago you were childish and wanted to force people to accept your ideas of dinosaur phylogeny. Now you're formal, well-spoken and interested in Cenozoic topics. I wonder what happened (although remember that I don't want you to go back to your previous ways.) Atlantis536 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extremely long story. After I socked for the second time, I tried to sock again after the first attempt was unsuccessful (as User:Patachonica), but this time, I did much better, such as avoiding WP:DUCK activity (i.e. editing on the pages I, as Magnatyrannus did) and adopted a new interest, such as South American mammals. However, it only took 2 months for me to get CU blocked. After that, I reappealed my block on the 27th of July and my unblock request was partially accepted. Tamzin reblocked me from indef CU block to temporary block that lasted for only a month in order to satisfy WP:CONDUNBLOCK. In other words, I was not allowed to WP:LOUTSOCK over the course of my block. I was set to be released today at 4:36 P.M, and now I am here on Wikipedia. I've changed my attitude because if I wanted to edit again, then I should act more civil to other editors and no POV pushing. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're doing better now. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am able to give you a good explanation of my childish behaviour and why I pushed my POV onto other people's dinosaur taxonomies. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK so, it all started when I discovered DeviantArt on August (the month of my birthday), but it wasn't until October when I started the behaviour. Then, when I stumbled around on your DA page, I found your cladograms. To me they did not look very well written and I did indeed think that they had some mistakes. I believed that people should follow what is said in the literature and on Wikipedia and that people should avoid engaging in original synthesis and original research. Heck I even used that on Paleonerd1905 when I called him out for making Paulocnus and Urumacocnus megalocnids just because the latter was recovered as the sister taxon to Acratocnus and that Paulocnus lived in the Caribbean as per the other megalocnids. Also, do keep in mind that the study describing Urumacocnus was published prior to the molecular based phylogenies, which recovers megalocnids as basal to all other sloths. I still sometimes complain about WP:SYNTH but at least I'm honest about it being WP:SYNTH. I thought that if people treated taxa as synonyms on cladograms, then Wikipedia should classify them as synonyms, and that if Wikipedia doesn't treat certain taxa as synonyms (e.g. Anasazisaurus --> Kritosaurus), then people on DA shouldn't treat them as synonyms as well. Will discuss more soon but now I've got to go now. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 11:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeviantArt is not Wikipedia, so it doesn't follow the strict "no original research/synthesis" rule Wikipedia has. While Wikipedia can only report on what scientific literature says, DeviantArt users can have their own opinions, as long as they are not too controversial. Also, neither site should be used as sources, and, as many people have explained to you, there is no single, authoritative source for any phylogeny, so it's alright if different people have different ideas on how taxa are related. Finally, your way of correcting mistakes (insisting that certain taxa are only in the positions you believe they are and repeating those claims over and over again) is problematic, which is one reason why you got blocked here in the first place. But I'm glad you grew out of that. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to remake Walking with Dinosaurs episode, Spirits of the Ice Forest, what setting and animals would you use? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change the setting from Antarctica to Australia, replace the "polar allosaur" with Rapator, Koolasuchus with Isisfordia, and the Leaellynasaura with Fostoria.

And hey, did you know talk pages aren't supposed to be used mainly for miscellaneous communication? That means you should come to talk pages mostly to talk about editing Wikipedia or explaining facts, not pop culture remakes. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a discord account, remember? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be reason enough to use talk pages to talk about fan fiction. Talk pages are for helping others edit Wikipedia and learn facts. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How else am I supposed to talk to you? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please just don't. I'm too busy with life. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lingyuanosaurus CuddleKing1993 (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first chapter of my WWD reimagining fanfic, a mother Coelophysis will get horribly wounded from a smaller animal defending itself from being eaten, which get infected and she slowly dies as a result, but I do not know exactly what type of animal would be perfect for the role. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine something like Hesperosuchus or Vancleavea. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which one would you recommend, Vancleavea or Hesperosuchus? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either one is fine with me. It's your choice.

Also, I see an anonymous user has posted something on your talk page. I think you should answer them. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you like the flags because they add colour. Who, among readers, will recognise the Texan flag? Is it really so hard to read "US" and "Texas" as text? On my monitor the flags squash the text into a most ungainly appearance: it's harder to make sense of. Perhaps your browser window is very wide. That's abnormal. Tony (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't readd the flags simply because they "add color"; what I meant to say is that, no matter the monitor size, the unique color schemes of flags can help people understand that certain dinosaurs lived in the same place, even at a glance. Not everyone will get the idea purely from text alone; for example, speed-readers might see "United" and automatically think it says "United Kingdom" or "United States", but if they see a mostly red flag with blue in the corner, they will understand it's from the US, and if they see a mostly blue flag with a red and white cross in the middle, it's from the UK. Also, the "xxxx in paleontology" pages have had flags from over a decade and no one objected to them, so it's good to keep them for consistency. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the work you're doing, even though I think the flags spoil it. Wouldn't you be better off with simply "US" and "UK": very distinguishable, and you have a horizontal space crisis on your hands. I hope we're not catering for readers who don't bother to read to the right of "United", either. Now, can you distinguish the Australian from the New Zealand flag? Go on, try ... Won't the flags also jar with "Images", when you start to fill the final column?

One point: no hyphen after -ly (basally-).

Could I suggest improvements to the lead, which is hard to parse at the moment (particularly where I've italicised)?

"This article records new taxa of fossil archosaurs of every kind that are scheduled described during the year 2023, as well as other significant discoveries and events related to paleontology of archosaurs that are scheduled to occur in the year 2023."

You might consider:

"This article records new taxa of every kind of fossil archosaur described during 2023, as well as other significant discoveries and events related to the paleontology of archosaurs scheduled for 2023."

I'm scratching my head about scheduling vs discovery. How can discoveries be scheduled? Could it be worded better for non-experts?

Tony (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the flags: I'd rather have both the flags and text together, so that no matter what people look for, they can get the information.

Re scheduling vs discovery: "scheduling" in this context means that a scientific paper about paleontology is scheduled to be published in a journal in 2023. I'll try to make that clearer. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I'm being dumb. The article for 2022 contains a reference titled: "The effects of skull flattening on suchian jaw muscle evolution". But the summary appears to be in the opposite direction: "A study on the musculature of crocodylian and fossil suchian jaws, and on the implications for the impact of skull flattening on muscle anatomy of suchians." (I streamlined the summary, but didn't change its direction.) Tony (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like you and Macrochelys sorted it out already. If you ever find problems with these "xxxx in paleontology" pages, you can always count on him. He'll sort things out professionally, no matter what they may be. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. It's great to see such a narrowly scoped, specialised class of articles. I wish you and your colleagues well in building it. Tony (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it's the result of my duties elsewhere, which in fact will likely force me to reduce my activity here - at the very least during the upcoming month or so. Regards Macrochelys (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Bashunosaurus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bashunosaurus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the dinosaur Bashunosaurus was first mentioned in a scientific paper in 1989, but was only formally named in 2004? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bashunosaurus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bashunosaurus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 12:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added Suzana Herculano-Houzel's new theropod/neuron paper to 2022 in archosaur paleontology. Is there a reason you added it to that page instead of the 2023 page? -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The date given on the journal website is December 15, 2022, even though the media only reported on it in 2023. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are referring to the accepted date, not the date it was made available online (January 5, 2023). -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. The media reports only link directly to the PDF on wiley.com, which doesn't have the 2023 date. Guess I'll move it then. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When creating a redirect from a related taxon, please check the target article to ensure that an ordinary reader will understand why they have been redirected to that specific article. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sorted out. Atlantis536 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you just started a page for the new sauropodomorph. Is there any reason that it shouldn't be located at the page for the genus, rather than the species? It is currently just a redirect to another topic. It wouldn't be too much effort to correct the pages that link to the redirect to go to the proper target (Qianlong Emperor). Does that make sense? Kind of like Meraxes, which was started as a species page (Meraxes gigas), but was moved to where it is now. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really have an opinion, but I’m pretty sure the Qianlong Emperor is the more notable topic. The only reason Meraxes gigas was redirected was because the “main” topic, the Song of Ice and Fire character, is simply not notable enough for its own page. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways to do this better.

1. Don't start it in main article space
   1. You can start it in your sandbox (where I see you have a fun bit of fiction)
   2. You can start it in a new subpage to your user page (basically just go to your userpage, then in the addressbar put a / after your username and follow that by the name you want the new subpage to have)
   3. You can start it in the draft namespace via WP:AFC or just by creating a link like Draft:Jingia, for example
2. You can tag the article...
   1. with {{under construction}}
   2. with {{in use}}

All of those methods will give you some easier breathing room than just an edit summary. Anyway, good job on "Jingia" dongxingensis‎‎! :) I've updated the taxonomy template so that the taxobox has the quote marks. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Thanks! Atlantis536 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!! It's nice to hear my work inspired some of your reconstructions and I wanted to stop in and say I really like the reconstructions you've posted to the paleontology board!! :) Raingerr (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is there anything in particular you like? Atlantis536 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific, they are nice to look at overall and I really like your artstyle! Raingerr (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s nice to hear! Atlantis536 (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new paper dropped by Fenollosa et al. (2024) described a new specimen of Dacentrurus in Spain, and suggests Miragaia as a synonym. But conversely a 2019 paper describing a more complete specimen from Portugal actually dismiss the synonymy…

One of the authors in the 2024 paper includes the one who proposes the synonymy of Miragaia first.

So I think Miragaia is not dead in case. Huinculsaurus (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]