Talk:Troodontidae

Bullatosauria

Anyone feel like starting a Bullatosauria article? The red link to it in this article looks a bit like a sore thumb. Alternatively, is it OK to copy over from evowiki [1]? - Ballista 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd do it, but I fear I don't have the intel. Nobody wants to create articles more than me, but I usually only know a bit about genus, not families etc. Sorry, but if you could supply me with a site or source, I'd be glad to help you. Thanks. Spawn Man 06:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure such an article would be useful. Bullatosauria has been out of use for about ten years, and even Tom Holtz, who created the group in the first place as a subset of the old-school version of Arctometatarsalia, repeatedly stresses that he was mistaken and that tyrannosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, and especially troodontids, are not closely related. The evo wiki article doesn't seem to clarify the fact that this group has been abandoned by (as far as I know) all paleontologists including its author.Dinoguy2 15:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for usual reliable clarification. However, I feel a very small page might be useful, in case punters require info. I might get around to one, soon (in view of its now-revealed simplicity!). - Ballista 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"EK troodontid"

I know this is sometimes what it's called in the lit, but really? As nicknames go, it's more than misleading. Many troodontids are EK. I can maybe see LJ troodontid for "Lori", but... Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a terrible working name, but here's the thing. It is the name researchers have used in at least six papers I've read. I've been reading "EK troodontid" in papers going back years, but there was never any clear identification of what the "EK troodontid" is. All the other google hits for it are similarly vague. I wish this article had been there for me years ago. I was proud to go get the monograph, prove that SPS 100/44 it is definitely what Makovicky et al. call "EK troodontid", and then put that in wikipedia as the first unambiguous identification of it on the web.Jbrougham (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course, it's just very confusing when used as a label with no supporting explanation (as Mackovicky did, and we're doing in the taxonomy section). Is Barsbold still active in paleo? Haven't heard much from him in a while, and a lot of his stuff really needs to get named or re-named already... (EK troodont, "Ingenia", etc.) Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. J. Spencer (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC) (the material was a paragraph of potential synapomorphies from the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs)

Alaskan species .....

Apparently more than twice as large as "normal" - if a Paleo-fan on here has the papers to cite, would be a good addition to the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I could've sworn I saw a mention of this in a paper not long ago, but have no clue where. Has this been discussed recently? Abyssal (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a cite: [2] MMartyniuk (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Direct Ancestors of Birds?

I see that someone edited this article back in November and added something about Aves being a direct descendant taxon of Troodontidae. Can anyone verify this? If true, this would mean that troodontids are actually not extinct. Do The Roar (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The ancestor of birds was probably very similar to a troodontid, as was Archaeopteryx, but not technically a member of the clade Troodontidae. So no, troodontids are not the direct ancestors of birds. In fact, Troodontidae is defined as "all species more closely related to Troodon than to modern birds", so birds cannot be descended from troodontids by definition. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Smallest Troodontid?

The article states that the smallest troodontid is Anchiornis; however, the Anchiornis page—and the cladegram on this page— clearly show Avialae in the clade Avialae, not troodontidae. Someone needs to clear this up. --96.250.105.67 (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

EX Trodontid

should https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Unnamed_troodontid.jpg be added to EK Troodontid?65.255.88.233 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we know it's the same? Doesn't look like the same fossil. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this specimen turned out to be what's now called Halszkaraptor, a dromaeosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Jinfengopteryginae

As of before now, Jinfengopteryginae redirected to here, so I made a new page for that subfamily. --Hiroizmeh (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mistake or Vandalism

Why does it say that troodonts and other maniraptorans (Compsognathus, Juravenator, Archaeopteryx etc.) are mammals even though they are obviously dinosaurs. FireworkBurst (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Because Sulaimat has been vandalizing the template for no logical reason.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong classification

The classifications of a lot of these pre-aves or related to aves animals don't seem to be correct. E.g. Troodontidae are categorized under the class of Mammalia, just like Paraves. Very weird. 213.124.174.59 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

That is because someone is screwing with the taxoboxes again. @FunkMonk:, can you help with that?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very savvy with the technology behind templates around here, perhaps @Jts1882: or @Peter coxhead: knows something.

Darn, forgot to sign so the pings won't work, trying again, @Jts1882:, @Peter coxhead:. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone vandalised the therapod template a few days ago and caused something similar for all taxoboxes within that taxa. Because of caching it can take some time for the fix to propagate to all pages after the change is reverted. A null edit on the affected page can sometimes help. I can't see a problem at Troodontidae or Paraves so I assume it was reverted. If not post, an example and I'll have a look. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't find any recent edit that could have caused the problem, so I assume it's a leftover from this edit to {{Taxonomy/Theropoda}} a week ago. The error was spotted and fixed within the hour by editor DrawingDinosaurs but it seems the effects of such vandal errors can linger and this one still isn't completely cleared. The article Dromaeosauridae shows the correct taxonomy in the taxobox, but the template page at {{Taxonomy/Dromaeosauridae}} shows Mammalia in the hierarchy (or did before a null edit). I suspect there are other pages for more obscure theropods that still show errors. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)