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?
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
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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
