Talk:List of ornithopod type specimens

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Useful code (please don't archive this section)[edit]

Here is a blank table whose code can be conveniently copy-pasted in the main article when needed. I've used internal notes to label the columns each cell in the row belong to. Please don't archive this section heading as it should be available to editors perpetually to ease adding to the list. Abyssal (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Species	Genus	Nickname	Catalogue Number	Institution	Age	Unit	Country	Notes	Images
									The "Trachodon mummy".

Question regarding non-ornithopod ornithischians[edit]

During my process of adding missing geologic and institutional information to the list, I realized that there are several entries on this list that are not members of the clade Ornithopoda. For instance, there are thescelosaurids such as Albertadromeus and Orodromeus, basal neornithischians such as Yandusaurus and Haya, and other ornithischians such as Hypsilophodon. Should these entries remain in this list, or should a new list be created to accomodate for ornithischians that are not marginocephalians, ornithopods, or thyreophorans? CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it some time, and I will be removing the following genera and adding them to a currently in-progress list of other ornithischian type specimens. I have included the reasoning for these removals in parentheses next to each of the taxa:

-Albertadromeus (Thescelosaurid)

-Changchunsaurus (Thescelosaurid or jeholosaurid)

-Drinker (Other neornithischian)

-Haya (Jeholosaurid)

-Hypsilophodon (Sister to Cerapoda)

-Koreanosaurus (Thescelosaurid)

-Leaellynasaura (other neornithschian)

-Orodromeus (Thescelosaurid)

-Oryctodromeus (Thescelosaurid)

-Thescelosaurus (Thescelosaurid)

-Yandusaurus (Basal neornithschian

-Zephyrosaurus (Thescelosaurid) CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Format Improvements[edit]

It's not clear to me that the columns "Genus" and "Nickname" add anything of value to this page, and in fact they make the table too wide to view on a single monitor. The genus names are all listed in the "Species" column, which could be renamed "Latin Name", "Scientific Name", or "Binomial Name", and not a single holotype listed has a listed nickname. I propose that these columns should be deleted and a new column, which list the skeletal elements included in the holotype should be added, since that information is mostly absent from the table. Alternatively, this could simply be added to the "Notes" column. This wouldn't require any new sources since a description of the holotypic elements is in the papers describing the specimens. Lastly, the "Country" column is mostly irrelevant, since very few stratigraphic units exist across national borders, and those that do could have their location specified in the "Unit" or "Institution" column. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've greatly improved the List of marginocephalian type specimens and the List of thyreophoran type specimens using the format changes that I suggested above. The lack of response and lack of activity on this page outside of my own, and one other user's, edits on the page over the (nearly) two months since my original post has led me to conclude there is no dissent for this format change, and I plan to do so at my earliest availability.--A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]