Talk:Moros intrepidus
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Article is largely dependent on one source[edit]
More sources need to be added to the article outside of the one that is self published by Lindsay Zanno and her team. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not really an emergency situation, but yeah, some news sources could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- They definitely should not be added. Science journalism is almost entirely composed of misinterpretations and poor representations, any info not already present in the paper is likely wrong. The only possible source to use is the original, peer reviewed (not self-published) paper as it is the only reliable source of info on the taxon. We go through this, like, every time a new species gets named. The answer is the same everytime. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would disagree, many news sources (I'm not talking about dumbed down popsci) include additional information and interviews with the scientists involved which give context and flesh out the discovery. Sometimes they are the only sources to give detailed information about when and how specimens were excavated. But no, they are not a requirement. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with FunkMonk, we should be including the viewpoints of other notable scientists in the field even if it is done via news sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the problem with recently described taxa like Moros is that it has to be very dependent on one source because that's the only peer-reviewed thing published on it. News reports have to be very carefully selected (after the whole "Triceratops never existed" nightmare). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- How are news articles supposed to give "the opinions of other notable scientists"? Usually the only scientist opinions included are some opinions from the authors of the paper. If you want the opinions of other scientists we're better off citing the blogs of palaeontologists or the DML. Cau does have a blogpost on Moros, though it doesn't say much the paper didn't touch on already. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article is not "self-published". Zanno e.a. are not the publishers of Communications Biology :o). The article is in a limited sense a primary source, in that it embodies, or is constitutive of, the naming act: the validity of the scientific name is created by the article itself. Largely however, such articles function as secondary sources, the authors reflecting on primary sources (their field notes and observations), existing descriptions of other taxa, hypotheses by other researchers, the peer review, etc., etc. We must be very careful of using journalistic sources, especially interpretation by journalists, who somehow always manage to get it just wrong. However, often interviews of the researchers reveal details, such as the discovery date and the approximate size of the animal, that are absent from the scientific article, yet very useful for Wikipedia. We simply have to apply common sense. Throw out what is nonsense and keep what is valuable.--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus that these articles function as secondary sources? There is a reason why we have the tag "one source" as it does not look good with so much tied to a single source. I would compare this to articles that are rated higher which have a diversity of sources to keep a more balanced opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Its a primary source in any case, but a high-quality one. Peer Review means that content is carefully examined by independent peer reviewers and the journal (which is also independent), and only after their approval of the revised manuscript the article is published. This will likely be, for some time to come (probably years) the only high-quality source. This source presents the current knowledge, and all there is. News articles do not really help here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Non-science editors and science editors in theoretical domains often do not realize that paleontology and taxonomy papers cannot simply be published by sticking it on ResearchGate, arXiv, or a personal website. Under the pretense of "representing a balanced opinion", it is possible that an inexperienced editor may inadvertently introduce crank sources, such as those published by David Peters and Brian J. Ford, simply because they are published in venues that are considered "reliable secondary sources" by editors in other areas. WP:NPOV is important to keep in mind for the project, but digging up sources for the specific purpose of representing alternative opinions is a slippery slope when discretion is not appropriately exercised. 2001:569:782B:7A00:8078:762B:B6FB:AC2A (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus that these articles function as secondary sources? There is a reason why we have the tag "one source" as it does not look good with so much tied to a single source. I would compare this to articles that are rated higher which have a diversity of sources to keep a more balanced opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article is not "self-published". Zanno e.a. are not the publishers of Communications Biology :o). The article is in a limited sense a primary source, in that it embodies, or is constitutive of, the naming act: the validity of the scientific name is created by the article itself. Largely however, such articles function as secondary sources, the authors reflecting on primary sources (their field notes and observations), existing descriptions of other taxa, hypotheses by other researchers, the peer review, etc., etc. We must be very careful of using journalistic sources, especially interpretation by journalists, who somehow always manage to get it just wrong. However, often interviews of the researchers reveal details, such as the discovery date and the approximate size of the animal, that are absent from the scientific article, yet very useful for Wikipedia. We simply have to apply common sense. Throw out what is nonsense and keep what is valuable.--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- How are news articles supposed to give "the opinions of other notable scientists"? Usually the only scientist opinions included are some opinions from the authors of the paper. If you want the opinions of other scientists we're better off citing the blogs of palaeontologists or the DML. Cau does have a blogpost on Moros, though it doesn't say much the paper didn't touch on already. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the problem with recently described taxa like Moros is that it has to be very dependent on one source because that's the only peer-reviewed thing published on it. News reports have to be very carefully selected (after the whole "Triceratops never existed" nightmare). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with FunkMonk, we should be including the viewpoints of other notable scientists in the field even if it is done via news sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would disagree, many news sources (I'm not talking about dumbed down popsci) include additional information and interviews with the scientists involved which give context and flesh out the discovery. Sometimes they are the only sources to give detailed information about when and how specimens were excavated. But no, they are not a requirement. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- They definitely should not be added. Science journalism is almost entirely composed of misinterpretations and poor representations, any info not already present in the paper is likely wrong. The only possible source to use is the original, peer reviewed (not self-published) paper as it is the only reliable source of info on the taxon. We go through this, like, every time a new species gets named. The answer is the same everytime. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Title of article[edit]
The title of this article should be the genus name "Moros", as the large majority of (if not all) dinosaur articles, and not "Moros intrepidus". It would be good to have this changed then. Regards,--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 26 August 2019[edit]
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 22:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Moros intrepidus → Moros – Because the title of most (if not all) articles on dinosaurs refer to the genus only, and not to the genus and species Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- The existing article Moros is about a god in Greek mythology. So, that won't work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - invalid target In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - We also already have a disambiguation page for Moros. I am in favor of keeping the god in Greek mythology as the primary target as it appears to have the most usage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Typically, as Christophe Hendrickx said, for dinos and other paleotaxa the articles are are the genus level and not the species. Also, monotypic taxa are usually at the higher rank. However, as there are already a number of other moroses, I think WP:NATURALDIS applies and the page should remain at Moros intrepidus. --Nessie (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this is the primary topic of "Moros", and as disambiguation is needed, the binomial provides natural disambiguation. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.