Talk:Suskityrannus

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: New Mexico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (assessed as Low-importance).

What is the same with Zunityrannus and List of Dinosaur genera? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zunityrannus does not exist as a scientific genus and may never exist, if it is never formally described or if it is described under a different name. In lieu of deleting the whole thing, it's better to redirect it than to leave it out there to misinform people. J. Spencer (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the page was blanked? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone just check?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of an ongoing influx here of people trying to source the informal naming claim (Zunityrannus) to sources like Facebook, private Google drive documents, and Reddit. None of these are reliable because they are crowd-sourced or private. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for details. In a nutshell, what is required is statements made in articles or other publications that can be considered official and representative. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The theropoddatabase gives all this information[1], and though not exactly a peer reviewed source, it is written by Mickey Mortimer, who I believe has worked on published papers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also widely used on WP, AFAIK. Do you want to pop that in as a ref? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess all we need to say is something like "it was informally referred to as x, y, and z before its valid publication". FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense.--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]