Diapsid 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
Diapsid is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
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
I think the description here should be a little clearer. It repeatedly refers to diapsids being characterised by having two openings on either side of the skull, and yet every picture shows a skull with four openings. I assume this means in addition to an eye and a nostril, but as it's written now that's far from clear. While in scientific literature one could assume the reader understands this, in an encyclopaedia I think it should be explained. 76.118.92.242 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Diapsid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Hi everyone, do you think we should merge Neodiapsida into this article? The only consistent difference between the two taxa is that Neodiapsida excludes Araeoscelidia. But recent studies ([1][2][3]) have found that the araeoscelidians, if they were even reptiles at all, likely evolved their diapsid skulls independently of neodiapsids.
Support: Neodiapsida is just 3 cladograms with a header, which is a type of article that irks me a great deal. Any content that could be added to expand Neodiapsida would be regarding stem-group diapsids, which would be equally at home on Diapsida proper which certainly has nomenclatural priority (i.e. there's no situation where Diapsida should not have it's own article). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idon't support it. The cladogram in the second article uses the term Neodiapsida. The page size is not so small, and, in addition, views on classification can change quickly, which was already clearly seen in the example of Nanotyrannus, an article about which would be nice to restore. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I cannot possibly imagine the topic of all neodiapsids plus araeoscelidians is a significantly distinct topic from all neodiapsids without them, even if they were a stable member of the group. It's a content fork. Pretend for a second both pages were magically carried all the way to FA status; Diapsida is classically one of the most fundamental units of tetrapod classification. Is the suggestion that Diapsida would only cover the topic of how areoscelidians and neodiapsids relate to each other, and the information anybody searching for the "diapsid" article is looking for only be elaborated upon at Neodiapsida? It just doesn't make sense. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
