Talk:Thescelosauridae

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.

Name

This should probably be renamed Thescelosauridae because the inclusion of Parkosaurus in this clade has been questioned. Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a merge discussion underway, but ironically enough suggesting a merge in the wrong direction. I support merging Parksosauridae into Thescelosauridae, as the latter is the proper senior synonym, per Madzia and colleagues 2021. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that Parksosauridae is the original page, Thescelosauridae recently created page. This needs to be moved to overwrite that rather than just redirecting this over to there, to retain editing history. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think we are all in agreement that the Parksosauridae page is the one to go, and for the Thescelosauridae page to be the one true page. My question is in regards to moving the Parksosauridae page to Thescelosauridae, versus just blanking the Parksosauridae and turning it into a redirect to Thescelosauridae. If Parksosauridae just became a redirect, the edit history will still be there and anyone can still go back and see what the page used to be. @LittleLazyLass: Is there some other concern about retaining edit history that I am not aware of? Thanks Cougroyalty (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason the "move page" function exists is so that edit history can be retained; "page histories" at WP:MOVE goes over this briefly. It is more desirable to keep the edit history at the page where it belongs instead of expecting people to go find some redirect page to find the history of the article (now spread across two places). The procedure described at WP:SWAP, with help of an admin or page mover, can give us one Thescelosauridae article with all the edit history and a "Parksosauridae" redirect that does not contain substantial edit history. This is the most desirable outcome. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt realize Thescelosauridae was recently created ... Thats confusing. But yeah a page move is the proper move here. And the attached overwrite. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, you were the one that moved Thescelosauridae to Parksosauridae back in August 2017. And then I created the separate article for Thescelosauridae several months ago, which led us down this path. And LittleLazyLass, thank you for the explanation. Cougroyalty (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Parksosauridae be a redirect to Thescelosauridae? Magnatyrannus (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magnatyrannus If you had read the discussion here, it was made very clear that following the merge result, an *administrator* or someone with *page moving rights* was to be contacted to preserve the article history. As a result of you hastily and impatiently redirecting the page, we will either have to accept the loss of page history, which is *not advised*, or *revert all your edits so that someone else can properly move the page*. Please discuss on talk pages before making any significant edits to articles like redirecting entire pages. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magnatyrannus was entirely correct here. "blank and redirect" is the correct way to merge articles, see WP:MERGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, see also the discussion at Talk:Thescelosauridae. Cougroyalty (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the move has now been conducted, I will make a note for posterity that much of the discussion behind it took place at Talk:Parksosauridae, which are the time was "Talk:Thescelosauridae". LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Jeholosauridae into Thescelosauridae

Jeholosaurids are usually recovered as thescelosaurids, so I don't see any reason why this article should be separate. TheLibyanGuy (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't consistent enough in literature. Of the last ~5 major analyses, Dieudonne et al. 2021, Herne et al., 2019, and Sues et al., 2023 recover Jeholosauridae separate, and Fonseca et al., 2024, and Avrahami et al., 2024 recover Jeholosaurus within Thescelosauridae. There's also Poole 2022 that recovers them separate (Parsimony) or together (Bayesian). I have to oppose a merge to Thescelosauridae, though perhaps merging Jeholosauridae with Jeholosaurus is an alternate solution. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence leans towards ”jeholosaurids” being thescelosaurids TheLibyanGuy (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]