Talk:Scolosaurus

A fact from Scolosaurus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 January 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the type specimen of Scolosaurus seriously injured its discoverer, who was excavating it when it fell on him?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scolosaurus.

Wikipedia

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.
	This article is supported by The Ankylosauria Task Force (assessed as High-importance).

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.

Redundancy[edit]

The text states that Scolosaurus is an "ankylosaurine ankylosaurid dinosaur". Isn't this redundant? Aren't all ankylosaurine dinosaurs ankylosaurids? For that matter, aren't all ankylosaurids dinosaurs? I'm all for specificity, and I can see why one might want to say it's an ankylosaurid dinosaur (not everybody knows what an anyklosaurid is), but "ankylosaurine ankylosaurid" seems a bit too much (only dino-taxonomists would be expected to know either term, and those that know one of them likely know the other), at least for the introductory sentence. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the point, not everyone know what ankylosaurine is, or that there is any difference between the sub- and the family. This way the relation between the groups is clarified quickly... Furthermore, this mean that it is a fairly derived ankylosaurid.. The main reason is that it provides more clarity, and it's what we usually do (even in the original papers...). I personally would be satisfied to mention only "ankylosaurine"... And about the "introductory" part - its important to distinguish it from other forms (but using simple terms) from the beginning as much as possible, otherwise many articles will "look" the same (1500~ articles with the introduction: "..is an extinct genus of a dinosaur." isn't such a good idea, I think...)Rnnsh (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long paragraphs were removed by an IP, are these removals justified? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scolosaurus&diff=633716946&oldid=619667811 FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]