Talk:Ceratosauria

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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XxKingsman13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of the Coelophysoidea from the Ceratosauria[edit]

The Coelophysoidea has been found to sit outside of the Ceratosauria, according to recent studies. This means that the coelophysoids are no longer considered ceratosaurs.

Yes, that is why they are not listed in this article ;) Dinoguy2 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratodairid[edit]

the term ceratosaurid redirects here. shouldn't it go to ceratosauridae with ceratosaur redirecting to this article? Ryan shell 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will fix this. Dinoguy2 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late Triassic?[edit]

Today an IP changed the fossil range of the clade to beginning in the LT. J changed it back to Jurassic. Our current article states that Lukousaurus, from the LT/EJ is potentially a Ceratosaurian. I think the IP was trying to add some consistency between the articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at Lukou, tweaked the age/formation per Dinosauria II. J. Spencer (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. More consistent. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neoceratosauria[edit]

Neoceratosauria redirects to Ceratosauria. Why? Is Neoceratosauria an unranked division or superfamily? What's the deal? -- Myrddin_Wyllt 6/26/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.188.9 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disused name, see here. Mikenorton (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neoceratosauria is defined as the group containing both ceratosaurids and abelisaurids. So it's a sub-group of Ceratosauria. I added it to the classification. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very prepared to admit that this is an area I don't know much about, but why does the Paleobiology database show it as disused? Mikenorton (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, possibly because it's original intent was to distincguish "true" ceratosaurs from coelophysoids, which are no longer considered ceratosaurs. But as the clade was given a definition it's still "good" and not redundant with anything else. A google scholar search shows the term is still in current use in the literature by at least some authors. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceratosaurus nasicornis DB.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ceratosaurus nasicornis DB.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahariasauridae needs its own article[edit]

For some reason Bahariasauridae redirects to Bahariasaurus. Shouldn't it be its own page with links to both Bahariasaurus and Deltadromeous?

We know that Bahariasaurus isn't the only Bahariasaurid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that. I'm not aware of any official source that has recovered both in the same family or clade exclusive of other ceratosaurs. It's likely that these two are synonyms though, in which case the clade would still be monotypic. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram Format[edit]

What exactly is going on with the first two cladograms there? Can't say I've seen anything else like it, and for good reason. Likely needs replacing with the standard template, not to mention the references being fixed instead of awkwardly floating afterwards. Lusotitan 00:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah there are many pages that need updated cladograms (WP:TREEREQ could get a list of those ;)). I'll get to it. IJReid ^discuss 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]