Talk:Blasisaurus

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.

Question[edit]

Are we not supposed to talk about this one yet? J. Spencer (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox[edit]

Why is there only the genus the only thing the "Scientific classification" section? Also, it has been suggested that it and Arenysaurus are actually in Parasaurolophini and should therefore have Lambeosaurinae as most specific parent clade in the taxobox on both articles.142.176.114.76 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only thing in the taxobox because you blanked the taxobox page for Lambeosaurini, and unless you have a valid reference, neither Blasisaurus nor Arenysaurus are going to be classified under Pararhabdodontini. IJReid (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to remove Lambeosaurini from the taxobox on that particular page, which failed.... And I said PARASAUROLOPHINI, here is the ref: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2013.772061?journalCode=ujvp20#preview 142.176.114.76 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk:@J. Spencer: This requires consensus. Right now, as far as I can tell, Blasisaurus and Arenysaurus are classified in Lambeosaurini by doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069835 (26 July, 2013), basal to Lambeosaurini and Parasaurolophini by doi:10.1139/E10-081 (21 September, 2010), in Parasaurolophini by doi:10.1080/02724634.2013.772061 (12 November, 2013) and http://aragosaurus.com/secciones/publicaciones/artic/Cruzado-Caballero_etal_2011.pdf (22 September, 2011). Other references might have other classifications, but for now, these are the main citations. What should we do? IJReid (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said "should therefore have Lambeosaurinae as most specific parent clade in the taxobox on both articles.", and have a more comprehensive discussion in the phylogeny section. I personally prefer the parasaurolophin classification (It is perhaps notable that this classification has more material behind it.), and it has "interesting" implications.142.176.114.76 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"should therefore have Lambeosaurinae as most specific parent clade in the taxobox on both articles." This makes sense to me, and is also how we treat parallel situations among e.g. theropods. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For WP purposes, we should stop at the most specific clade that has consensus, and let the duckbill workers sort out the finer points. J. Spencer (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]