User talk:IJReid
|
|||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Oxalaia and Sauroniops
You know… they had the same fate.
They are considered synonyms of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and Carcharodontosaurus Saharicus by Ibrahim, but Cau, the one who named Sauroniops replied that Ibrahim ignored how Cau differentiates Sauroniops and Carcharodontosaurus so Sauroniops is not a smaller individual of Carcharodontosaurus. As of my thoughts, Oxalaia's holotype is gone and both are only known from cranial fragments, We can only hope that new specimens of both could be referred to the holotype… depends on luck. If we want them to be distinct or Sauroniops retained as a distinct genus related to Eocarcharia just like Cau's phylogeny and Oxalaia to be a distinct species of Spinosaurus or as a distinct genus.
Don't trust Yun's papers
Changyu Yun made Dynamoterror "invalid" and put Thanatotheristes within Daspletosaurus just months after Thanatotheristes is named. but are these studies just like the Teihivenator paper which is published in Researchgate but actually isn't formal?
WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)