User talk:Junsik1223: Difference between revisions

Papers suggested they were nomen dubium, but I wonder if it was formal or if they are still valid taxa currently (though future papers depends). Huinculsaurus (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter what we think; if at least one academic paper suggested that the taxon name is dubious, then it’s important to state that the taxon is potentially dubious which is exactly why I stated as such. Junsik1223 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello you keep undoing my edits to allosaurus eurpaeus. there are hardly any size estimates for it avialable and Molina Perez & Paul are the only ones providing estimates. and theirs fallacies in your argument

for one the links you sent me indicated that such sources can be used in citing the estimates, but it should be worded correctly, like “this author in a book estimated this taxon at this size.” such an avenue was suggested by Jen’s L.

plus I’ll say this again, Molina perez and his estimates are used on many pages for size estimates, so clearly they are not as unreliable as you indicate.

its also worth pointing out that Greg paul in later editions of Princeton field guides lime in 2024 stated that allosaurus europaeus size is uncertain, so the estimate you have there is questionable. a europaeus needs more size estimates included and Paul’s updates on europaeus need to be included, so heres a compromise edit (crude draft real thing will be more properly cited.

“Due to incomplete remains, the size of A. europaeus has been difficult to estimate. (citation:Princeton field guide to dinosaurs 3rd edition) Gregory S. Paul estimated A. europaeus as 7 meters and 1 tonne in 2010. (Princeton field guide to dinosaurs edition one) Molina-Perez and Laramendi estimated a size of 7.8m and 1.3 tonnes in 2019. ( theropod facts and figures).”

this fits in line with one of the avenues Jens offered in those links you sent.

“Whenever original research from a popular book is presented, including size estimates, we need to make that very clear directly in the text (e.g., “In 2020, paleontologist X stated in a popular book that”). — Jens Lallensack”

Themanguything (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean I keep reverted you? I’ve only reverted a single edit of yours. I don’t think I’ve ever interacted with you before the Allosaurus article? Junsik1223 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait I did interact with you before in fact 3 years ago (but that is the only time I could remember I ever interacted with you). Sorry about the confusion. But regardless, I have stated clearly why it is not ideal for inclusion when there is another published estimate. Junsik1223 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and the other estimate is problematic because Paul reversed him in other books, look at page 114 of the 2024 Princeton field guide. regardless, Jens lallensack included an avenue to inclusion for my estimate, in the wiki project page. plus I preserve both estimates and mention how its size is kind of uncertain. Themanguything (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i made a compromise edit under the rigors Jens suggested Themanguything (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you’ve read carefully the links I’ve sent, you could see that the co-author of the book has violated Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidlelines. That is the other reason why it’s not ideal for inclusion. Also you shouldn’t just edit things when the discussion is not finished yet. Junsik1223 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i edited so I could look at the template draft I sent you so my edits wouldn’t be malformed.

i reread the links, apparently the issue was at the time the estimates in the book weren’t fully published and having the guy himself put his in own estimates in was questionable, that’s what Interpreted what was wrong. but they didn’t appear to rule on the merits of his estimations but his conduct in citing rather.

that aside, Jens lallensack said popular book info could be included if it fit the format he suggested & I did my best to make it as such.

both estimates have their problems. Greg paul reversed himself in his later estimate like I’ve said (check 2016 and 2024 Princeton field guides.) and Molina Perez has all the problems you’ve indicated.

but those are the only estimates there are, so in my opinion at least they should both be included. Themanguything (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for any hiccups, I’m just very passionate about what I include. I only wish to inform and update. I understand your edits on tarbosaurus so I have no issue their. Themanguything (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Themanguything: Please do not edit war. If somebody reverts you, you should not revert back but open a discussion. You could be blocked for edit warring (not by me, as I am not an admin; just saying). That said, I agree with Junsik on this one. You waste your time if you try to ignore a WikiProject consensus (you are welcome to challenge that consensus, on the WikiProject Paleo talk page). Also note that Paul’s book is much more widely cited in the academic literature and got book reviews by renowned paleontologists such as Brusatte that suggest some degree of relevance, while the “Facts and Figures” book does not seem to have any of that sort … isn’t it just a children’s book? —Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ok I apologize, I fixed my edit. Themanguything (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]