User talk:SlvrHwk

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi SlvrHwk. Thank you for your work on Thylacosmiliformes. Another editor, Storye book, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for a very useful article, and for the time and hard work that you have contributed here. I have checked the article for Standard English, neutrality, copyright violation, and some minor issues, but no problem was found. Note that in the context of this article, "less" refers to a more minor degree, and "fewer" refers to a smaller number.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Storye book}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Storye book (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Dimartinia and Thylacosmiliformes

The articles you made are based in a pre-proof version of an scientific article. They are not published yet. I recommended you to take them to your sandbox until publication. Lmalena (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your concern here. However, it is standard practice to create pages for new taxa within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, even when the publication is in the "in-press" stage (not to be confused with preprint). The paper is peer-reviewed and has been accepted for publication. It will not undergo any changes in its finalization that will affect the scientific content. Happy editing, -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Uncertain

I'm not sure that redirecting fossil species articles to genera articles is a good idea. Is there some new consensus that says to do that? Abductive (reasoning) 00:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This WikiProject Palaeontology guideline is relevant; the consensus within the project is to discuss the species of fossil genera on the genus page. The exception is for rare cases when each species is individually well-known or well-researched (i.e., Mammuthus spp.), which isn't the case for the fairly obscure Eocypselus. If the genus is extant, the standard practice is to have separate pages for the extinct species—but again, that isn't the case here. Hope this helps, -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Missing edit summary

This edit of yours had "update" as edit summary. That is pointless, as all edits are "updates" to the page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:FIES: According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained [...], especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors. Paradoctor (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Meraxes phylogeny.

What do you mean by "unhelpful cladogram"? What exactly is your objection? Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There was no point in having that cladogram. It seems some editors like to add the every phylogeny that recovers a slightly different topology, which doesn't contribute to the page and adds unnecessary bloat. This is especially the case with Cau's 2024 analysis, which was not focused on carcharodontosaurids and did not discuss these results. It should not be used to support a specific aberrant placement inconsistent with more relevant and focused works. Besides, this particular analysis had a few strange results—some of them in the 'carcharodontosaurid' region of the tree—corrected in an updated version of the dataset published this year ([1]) that recovered a more familiar position for Meraxes. See also the edit summary history for this page. Hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any other questions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hello SlvrHwk, I had an doubt about can we create articles about Frictional dinosaurs like Pervatasaurus leroy (which got deleted) or the fictional dinosaurs from the Jurassic series. Thank you BharatGanguly (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)