Disputatio:Dinosauria

Hmmm... what do we think about this title. As a general rule, we avoid plural names. Furthermore, this is a taxonomic genre; dinosaurus, which now redirects here, is the more common term, cf its direct Graecum genitorem δεινοσαῦρος.--Ioshus ^(disp) 06:01, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dinosauria may be OK. According to en:wiki it is a properly established (though extinct!) superorder in the Linnaean system, so, in that case, we would normally use it as it is, in its plural form. What it wants is some good Latin and a taxobox. I might do the taxobox this afternoon unless anyone forestalls me.

Because there are redirects on en:wiki as well I haven't been able to confirm whether Dinosaurus is an established genus, or merely a general term: do we know that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if you think the Latin is better now. I took out this line from the classification:

- - - Classis Aves (e.g. Archaeopteryx)

because I didn't see how it fits with the rest. Perhaps, if it is to go back in, a footnote or something is needed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oportet delere secundam categoriam nexuum internorum quia non est utilis, pro virili parte. Quis adiuvare possit ? Ego id facere nequeo quamquam modo conatus sum. Sciurus nesciens (disputatio) 09:51, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Sciure nesciens! Rem curavi. Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 09:53, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]