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
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 articles
I'm starting a discussion here to get opinions from other editors about the wording of the taxonomy section. Should my original wording be used or should Miracusaurs' rewording be used? Carnoferox (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to reword the section in a way that falls in line with what does and does not need to be attributed per WP:INTEXT. A statement like "should be attributed" is an opinion which merits in-text attribution, but most of the rest of it only needs a citation, unlike Miracusaurs's rewording. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording as it was by Carnoferox and also Ornithopsis is best, as it arranged the series' of events chronologically while still explaining how the problems arose. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 20:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some slight changes to Ornithopsis' wording but largely agree with his version. See if these edits are reasonable. Carnoferox (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
