Talk:Besanosaurus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Besanosaurus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Besanosaurus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Besanosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100220053718/http://www.tantiauguri.net:80/ricerche/dinosauri_GB.htm to http://www.tantiauguri.net/ricerche/dinosauri_GB.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mikadocephalus here?

I've already extensively covered the research history of Mikadocephalus within the article and gone over its problematic taxonomic status (see Besanosaurus#Further specimens and Mikadocephalus). Even before Bindellini et al. (2021), Mikadocephalus was frequently treated as problematic, and at least one group of researchers since (Laboury et al. (2022)) have explicitly followed their conclusions. The Mikadocephalus article is pretty short and doesn't include anything not already covered in the Besanosaurus article, it could honestly probably just be redirected if the merge is successful. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the same reason Amirani1746 (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, there is not enough evidence for the validity of Mikadocephalus and keeping that page might confuse people looking for information on Middle Triassic ichthyosaurs. I would suggest to make a note on the Besanosaurus page regarding taxonomy and junior synonyms. Full disclosure: I am biased as I am one of the authors in the Bindellini study. Feiko Miedema (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

figure attached to vertebrae and ribs

The figure attached to the header: "Vertebrae and ribs" clearly displays a specimen of Mixosaurus/Phalaradon. I am an author on an upcoming paper on Besanosaurus postcranium I suggest we change to a figure from that paper after publication. Feiko Miedema (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would explain why it looked suspiciously like a mixosaurid... thanks for the heads up, I'll remove it from the article. I look forward to the upcoming paper! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usefulness of the two photos of the skull of the same BES SC 999 specimen.

Hello again Slate Weasel. As I say in the title, I do not see the usefulness of the two photos of the holotype skull of Besanosaurus (more precisely in sections 1.1 and n4), since they do not contribute anything to the narration of these last chapters. Personally, it would be wiser to remove them, but I would still like to hear your opinion. Cordially, Amirani1746 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]