Talk:Avemetatarsalia

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.

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

Hi Dinoguy2, long time no write. You've been doing cool stuff. I'll take your word for it as far as avemetatarsalia having precedence. How would you feel if we include the fifth paragraph in the first paragraph, so that the people whoa re redirected will know right away that the two clades are synonymous?Jbrougham (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much waffle?

So, I was trying to locate an actual defnition of what an Avemetatarsalian is but the closest thing I could find on this page is "Archosaurs that are closer to birds than crocodiles" which very vague to say the least. Now, I've found a website (http://mason.gmu.edu/~gbirchar/Dinobiol/dinochar.htm) that provides some defining characteristics if you scroll down and I was thinking of adding them to the page, usurping the heading "classification" and giving the information already under that title a new name like "Etymology" or something equally more fitting. I think this would be more accurate and informative than what we have now, thoughts? The Talking Toaster (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In modern classification, groups are defined by their relationships, not their physical characteristics directly. So that kind of information should be included under Description. Anyway, that page doesn't seem to cite its sources, so we wouldn't be able to make the information verifiable. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]