Talk:Thanos simonattoi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thanos simonattoi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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.

Persistent vandalism[edit]

This article has, predictably, gotten a lot of vandalism. I think it could do with an increased protection level. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources[edit]

While it's fun to transcribe primary literature, secondary sources can add depth and context. I've found surprisingly little English press coverage besides comic book websites and blogs, but the Brazilian magazine Galileu and news site G1 have brief profiles that might be used to craft this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sassatelli, Carol (November 29, 2018). ""Thanos" foi o primeiro dinossauro carnívoro da região sudeste do Brasil". Galileu (in Brazilian Portuguese).
"Vilão da Marvel Thanos dá nome a espécie de dinossauro achada no interior de SP". G1 (in Brazilian Portuguese). December 4, 2018.

Press articles are generally discouraged for dinosaur articles due to their often poor regurgitations of the science, so I'd only recommend using one if there's a fair amount of background information for the discovery and history of the specimen(s) like with Weewarrasaurus (whose press article predictably reports very poorly on the ecological side of the paper). Otherwise it's just an extra, poorer source tacked on for the sake of it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of description — 2018 or 2020?[edit]

What year date should be used? There is a confusing (at least to me) mix of references to both 2018 and 2020 in the article. Seems pretty clear the taxon was described in 2018, but there seems to have been a concerted effort to get most references changed to 2020 after the print version of the describing article was released. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]