Fort Towson

	Paleontology portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Mosasaur is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marine life Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marine life To do:

Have a look at the Marine life WikiProject and sign up.

Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by The Marine life Wikiproject:

Collaboration of the week: Marine life article assessment
Other: See the projects page
Images: Upload any non-copyrighted marine life images to Wikimedia Commons
Featured Articles/Good Articles:
Other: Add {{Portal|Marine life}} to related articles

Teylers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Teylers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Teylers Museum 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.TeylersWikipedia:WikiProject TeylersTemplate:WikiProject TeylersTeylers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 5 February 2024

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.

Mosasaur → Mosasauridae – Per existing discussion, there seems to be an agreement that "Mosasaur" is too ambiguous of a term to refer to any specific taxon, and so is better off being redirected to a disambiguation page. Since this article's content focuses entirely on mosasaurids, it should be renamed to that family, following the precedent of Ichthyosauria. Macrophyseter | talk 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pinging pre-request commenters @SilverTiger12:@FunkMonk:@Slate Weasel:@Hemiauchenia: Macrophyseter | talk 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I believe, and I also support the creation/split of a separate Mosasauria article as well. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per below; I would also be okay with combining Mosasauridae, Aigialosauridae, and Mosasauroidea into a single article, but either way, I'd consider "mosasaur" too ambiguous a title. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existing discussion: Mosasaur vs. Mosasauridae vs. Mosasauroidea vs. Mosasauria: proposed article splits

Right now the mosasaur article conflates several higher taxa, which may not be necessarily reflective of how "mosasaur" is used in academia. Unfortunately, there isn't really a consensus on what the word should mean exactly. There's even arguments (i.e. Caldwell (2012)^[1]) that "mosasaur" might as well be an informal term. From I understand of the taxonomic situation, the three main Mosasauridae subgroups (Mosasaurinae, Halisaurinae, and Russellosaurina) either have or are implied to have at their phylogenetic bases terrestrial-limbed taxa we would normally call aigialosaurs. "Aigialosaur" itself seems to either be used as an evolutionary grade (i.e. Makadi et al. 2012^[2]) or avoided altogether in favor of terms like "basal mosasauroid." So if we were to make "mosasaur" congruent with Mosasauridae, there would be the awkward situation of aigialosaurs that aren't that different from each other being split between Aigialosauridae, Mosasauridae, or neither. I don't think congruency with Mosasauroidea would make much sense either, since scientists almost never use "mosasaur" that way (and only informally when so) and instead just use "aigialosaur" or "basal mosasauroid." Making "mosasaur" congruent with Mosasauria would also be problematic for similar reasons (plus the ophidiomorph hypothesis would make snakes = mosasaurs).

A possible way to stabilize the Mosasaur article would be to split it up into the following:

Mosasauria: Contains Dolichosauridae and Mosasauroidea. Maybe also merge Pythonomorpha into this as a more neutral article name, given that the former clade neither conflicts with the latter nor the snake terrestrial-origin hypothesis.
Mosasauroidea: Would be a "super article" that covers both aigialosaurs, Aigialosauridae, and Mosasauridae with the latter two not having independent articles (similar to Physeteridae with Physeteroidea). This allows a neutral space for conflicting viewpoints and definitions to coexist.
Mosasaur: Independent article in a similar format as River dolphin that strictly includes only taxa fitting the "traditional" definition of paddle-bearing mosasauroids (i.e. Caldwell (2012)). From a descriptive standpoint this also makes sense as the biologys of derived mosasaurs are similar to each other but different from aigialosaurs.

Or we can do away with "mosasaur" entirely, like we did with Ichthyosaur.

Opinions? Macrophyseter | talk 23:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Caldwell, M.W. (2012). "A challenge to categories: "What, if anything, is a mosasaur?"". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 183 (1): 17–34. doi:10.2113/gssgfbull.183.1.7.
^ Makádi, L. S.; Caldwell, M. W.; Ősi, A. (2012). Butler, Richard J (ed.). "The First Freshwater Mosasauroid (Upper Cretaceous, Hungary) and a New Clade of Basal Mosasauroids". PLOS ONE. 7 (12): e51781. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...751781M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051781. PMC 3526648. PMID 23284766. Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons License.

Well, first off, not every clade needs an article. I can see the case for seperate Mosasauria and and Mosasauridae, but I'd prefer that Mosasauroidea be redirected to Mosasauria, and no independent "Mosasaur" (either redirect or disambiguate). Merging Pythonomorpha into Mosasauria is also a good idea. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! I'm curious about what problems you envision for an independent Mosasauroidea article that steers towards a preference for redirecting to Mosasauria. I agree that not every clade needs an article, but there comes a point when groups are different enough to warrant it, unless that's not the case for the situation for aigialosaurs? Macrophyseter | talk 01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "mosasaur" is comparable to river dolphin, as it does not necessarily denote an unnatural group. That term should be used for (or redirected to) the highest taxonomic rank it can be applied to. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, as the guy who did away with "ichthyosaur" entirely, I'd be in favor of doing the same with "mosasaur" as an independent article for the same reasons - it is an ambiguous, inconsistent term that should be redirected or disambiguated. How stable is the aigialosaurid/mosasaurid split? I think separate Mosasauria and Mosasauroidea articles would be good (from my experience reading the mosasaur literature, Mosasauroidea is generally addressed separately than the larger group containing the dolichosaurs), but if the delineation of Aigialosauridae/Mosasauridae is controversial, having the be redirected to Mosasauroidea seems like the cleanest way to discuss them for the moment. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's been any updates since Madzia and Cau (2017) formally defined where the aigialosaurid/mosasaurid split should be (everything more related to A. dalmaticus than dolichosaurs or mosasaurs), but whenever upheld as valid in phylogenetic analyses, that definition only includes Aigialosaurus and Opetiosaurus to the exclusion of every other aigialosaur taxa. Besides Komensaurus, the rest aren't tested in recent literature anymore because of a lack of reliable skull material, but both past studies and Mekarski (2017)'s PhD thesis got them nestled within the Mosasauridae so it's kind of a maybe? So the question for replacing "Mosasaur" with Mosasauridae would be how mosasaurid aigialosaurs should be represented when those aigialosaurs are morphologically/ecologically more similar to aigialosaurids than mosasaurs (In other words, whether a GA/FA version of Mosasauridae and Mosasauroidea would have to rigorously describe aigialosaurs twice). Perhaps we could make aigialosaur information in Mosasauridae skim in practice and redirect most descriptions to Mosasauroidea. Thoughts? Macrophyseter | talk 18:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a recent review of basal mosasaurians in the 2022 book The Origin and Early Evolutionary History of Snakes in the chapter "A Review of Non-Mosasaurid (Dolichosaur and Aigialosaur) Mosasaurians and Their Relationships to Snakes" (Wikipedia Library link I think a case could be made for splitting out Mosasauridae, but I agree that the issue about the definition of "Mosasaur" is messy. II think turning it into a disambig could be a good solution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created a formal move request for current article. Macrophyseter | talk 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Marine life has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME policy; see Mosasaur (Britannica), National Park Service, etc. Wikipedia focuses on names in common parlance over scientific ones which is why acetylsalicylic acid is a redirect.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aspirin vs. acetylsalicylic acid is not an accurate analogy here. Those two names refer to the same chemical. Mosasauria and Mosasauridae describe two different groups, and, to oversimplify, "mosasaur" has been used to describe either to the exclusion of the other, hence the common name does not meet MOS:PRECISION. Macrophyseter | talk 22:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people can come up with a substitute WP:BROADCONCEPT article for the "Mosasaur" concept then I'd be inclined to agree to the move. As it is, it will be overly confusing to move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move per Zxcvbnm. This appears to be the common name used in sources, and I'm not convinced by the argument that the term is particularly ambiguous. If there are grey areas those can be discussed specifically within the text. — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Caldwell2012-1] Caldwell, M.W. (2012). "A challenge to categories: "What, if anything, is a mosasaur?"". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 183 (1): 17–34. doi:10.2113/gssgfbull.183.1.7.

[Makadietal2012-2] Makádi, L. S.; Caldwell, M. W.; Ősi, A. (2012). Butler, Richard J (ed.). "The First Freshwater Mosasauroid (Upper Cretaceous, Hungary) and a New Clade of Basal Mosasauroids". PLOS ONE. 7 (12): e51781. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...751781M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051781. PMC 3526648. PMID 23284766. Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons License.

[1]

[2]