Talk:Bagaceratops

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bagaceratops article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Remove link?[edit]

That first external link seems to be at the end of the articles for Bagaceratops as well as other small members of the Ceratopsia (Archaeoceratops, Bainoceratops, Leptoceratops, Montanoceratops, Prenoceratops, Breviceratops, Lamaceratops and Platyceratops), despite the fact that it only addresses the group in general (mainly the larger forms), and has very little, if any, relevancy to smaller forms like Bagaceratops, Breviceratops, etc.--which are known from Asia, despite the fact that American dinosaurs are the subject of the link.

Said link offers no information on the small forms whose articles link to it, so if you follow the link expecting to find information on one of these small forms, you end up scrolling halfway down the page just to realize that there is no information relevant to that dinosaur at all! Wouldn't it be better just to put that link on the article about Ceratopsidae, or even just dinosaurs in general? Instructing someone to scroll halfway down the page to find the information they want, when that information is very basic and probably already present on Wikipedia anyway, is tedious (for the reader) and unnecessary. 71.217.114.221 22:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable point. I'll take it off the basal ceratopsians. J. Spencer 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, following the article mergers, all the resulting self-links should be removed. Oddly, Bagaceratopidae is also still a separate article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Lamaceratops, Platyceratops, Gobiceratops and Magnirostris into Bagaceratops. -- Borophagus (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to discuss... As brought up here by PaleoNeolitic, this paper from 2019 synonymized Gobiceratops, Lamaceratops, Magnirostris and Platyceratops into Bagaceratops. Unless anyone knows of any serious opposition to this, we should merge all these taxa like we did earlier with Nanotyrannus and Stygimoloch User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just like we did with the Pachycephalosaurus synonyms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Pachy and Nano issues had many years to be contested before we merged, though. 2019 isn't really that long ago. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may sound like a subjective comment but the specimens assigned for Lamaceratops and Platyceratops [1] are literally the same as other Bagaceratops specimens only differing in the nasal horn or stockiness/maturity, and given that there's legitimate research regarding this, I find it difficult to support these taxa. Also, this paper [2] seems to agree with Czepiński's ontogenic identification methods. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I seriously doubt the sinking will meet much resistance. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stumbled upon this 2009 discussion by accident at the old Tet Zoo blog by Darren Naish. Only bringing this up here to show how actually old is this perception of bagaceratopids. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The particular reasoning for my decision has been explained well enough by everyone else. Borophagus talk 07:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.