User Talk: Cougroyalty

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

Hi Cougroyalty! I noticed your contributions ↗ to :Decapoda ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button 2|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Please remember to sign your messages on talk page ↗s by typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!  Epipelagic (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crab ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menippe ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Crocodylus" megarhinus ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Alligator ↗

25px|Smile emoji ↗ Hi Cougroyalty! Thank you for your edits to :Alligator ↗. It looks like you've copied or moved text from :Alligatoridae ↗ into that page, and while you are welcome to do so, Wikipedia's licensing ↗ requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary ↗ at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking ↗ to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>page name ↗</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

:Yeah, I forgot to mention where I copied it from that time. I'll make sure to add a link to the copied page in the edit summary in the future. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tomistoma ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>

About croc phylogenetics

The morphological data set used by Lee and Yates has a very high error rate. More recent studies have been published using more reliable data, and they should be used wherever possible. If one of those trees came from a different source, it wasn't evident. Email me if you want to discuss this further. (As whatever deity or deities may or may not be my witness, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. You've done a ton of work, and it's mostly very, very good.). <span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by Cabrochu (talk • contribs ↗) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)</span> 
:{{ping|Cabrochu}} Yeah, the second cladogram on the Alligatoridae ↗ page was referencing 2013 Hastings ''et al.'' and Brochu 2011. It was a more detailed cladogram of just Alligatoridae. I can probably find a more recent cladogram for that one. I'm thinking the 2020 Cossette & Brochu study (free access). But for a good Crocodylia cladogram to replace the one from the 2018 Lee & Yates study, perhaps I could go with the 2021 Rio & Mannion study. Also, I noticed you removed the cladogram on Grypsuchinae, so maybe I could use Rio & Mannion there as well. What are your thoughts on the new data set in the 2021 Rio & Mannion study? Cougroyalty (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Their data set is better than Lee and Yates, though I would focus on trees that did not include continuous shape variation. There are also some oddities in Rio and Mannion (e.g. their position of Eocaiman; last year's revision of Eocaiman would be a far better source on that; and their recovery of a non-monophyletic Planocraniidae). So if you went with their tree, I'd at least mention that Lee and Yates suggest non-gavialoid affinities for thoracosaurs (which might be correct, albeit not for the reasons cited in their paper) and that most analyses strongly support planocraniid monophyly (the JVP paper that came out a few weeks ago re-describing Duerosuchus is what you should use). I would look to the many papers recently published by South American systematists for caimanine relationships.
And I would still go with Salas-Gismondi et al. for gryposuchines.

assumptions

Suggesting it is a personal preference of mine is not an appropriate response when reverting to your own preference, or requesting reasons that were already given. Assume this instead, it might be an improvement, done in good faith, by an experienced editor, familiar with guidelines and policy, who was updating something they did at a related article, noted on its talk page, and you should open a discussion instead of insisting you just know better. ~ cygnis insignis 17:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
:Hello friend. You seem upset. Perhaps let's take a break from this and perhaps reconvene in a few days. But I'll respond to provide a little clarity. Ultimately, I was just wanting to better understand your reasons behind your edit, because they did not make sense to me. You seemed to imply there were particular guidelines or policies behind your edit. Perhaps you could share them, since I am unaware of such guidelines/policies. In my mind, it comes down to this: we both felt our own versions were better (based on personal preference). I provided my reasons for why I preferred it my way. I wanted to know your reasons why you preferred it your way. The reasons you initially provided were rather summaries of WHAT you did, and less so WHY you did them. (Perhaps consistency between living and extinct species?) I'm all for a civil discussion. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dunkleosteidae ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
:Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gunggamarandu ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

:Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

TOOTBLAN

I just saw your TOOTBLAN edit on Ryan Theriot's page. I love it! I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about baseball stuff, but this was news to me. Wonderful addition!
Matza Pizza (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

: :) Cougroyalty (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

How is this original research

The Pebas Formation ↗ dates to the Colhuehuapian ↗, which is around 21 mya, and you reverted my edit on ''Purussaurus ↗'' by saying it was original research ↗. Then you changed it back to the Friasian ↗, which would have matched the citation. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs ↗) 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page. Here is my reasoning: The 2021 Rio & Mannion study provides the ''Purussaurus'' date range of 16-5.3 Mya. (See supplement 18 in the list of Supplemental Information at the end.) So based on this date range, if we want to use the SALMA (South American land mammal age ↗) classification, we can then infer the starting SALMA age of Friasian (16.3-15.5 Mya). (And honestly, I wonder if using SALMA ages when not provided by sources is getting close to original research...) The Colhuehuapian dates from 21-17.5 Mya, which is outside the date range provided in the 2021 Rio & Mannion paper. When you state that ''Purussaurus'' dates back to the Colhuehuapian, based on the known age of the Pebas Formation, you are doing original research by synthesizing material "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" - the conclusion you are making is that ''Purussaurus'' dates back to earlier than 16 million years ago. (See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material ↗.) Do you have any sources stating that ''Purussaurus'' dates back to the Colhuehuapian or earlier than 16 million years ago? Anyways, thanks for hearing me out. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

display_parents at Brachyosteus ↗

Minor ranks and clades aren't routinely displayed except for when they are between the subject of an article and the next higher rank. I.e., minor ranks between order and family are displayed in a family article, but not a genus article. A genus article should show any minor ranks between genus and family. Automatic taxoboxes always display the immediate parent, so {{para|display_parents}} is only necessary when there are two or more minor ranks before the next higher major rank. If a minor rank (e.g. suborder Brachythoraci) is sufficiently important that you want to display it in the taxoboxes for all lower taxa, the way to do that is to set {{para|always_displayed}} in the taxonomy template for the important minor rank. Plantdrew (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
:Yeah, I guess I can understand that that is the normal standard. But sometimes I feel inclined to expand it a bit when the phylogeny is still in flux, as it is currently with the Brachythoraci ↗ arthrodire ↗s. For example, the clade Pachyosteomorphi ↗ was used in a 2016 study, but not a 2013 study by the same authors. Often times when I am trying to follow the classification of groups and species, I'll go pretty far up and down just using the information provided in the taxobox, so I like being a bit more inclusive in some situations. Eh, I guess maybe it comes down to personal preference, and you prefer less? But I think I'll follow your advice on marking Brachythoraci as set to "always displayed." Cougroyalty (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
::I screwed up; it should be {{para|always_display}} not {{para|always_displayed}}. Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Got it, thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cetacea ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taras ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

:Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crayfish ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstitial ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

:Fixed. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Mekosuchus "arboreality"

I've given my reason for the revert on the Mekosuchus page already but I feel it might be worth briefly mentioning the why in a bit more detail. Basically, while researching the page its been made abundantly clear that the arboreal hypothesis has very much been blown out of proportion by popular perception and the internet and actually has little in support of it.

Arboreality was only ever truly mentioned by Willis in a 1997 review of Australasian crocodiles, in which he wrote "...the form of the humerus is so similar to that of species of Varanus it is even possible that this was an arboreal taxon..." and far as I could find was rarely discussed with any sort of greater thought by later authors. Mead et al. once used the phrase "terrestrial to semi-arboreal" without elaboration in the description of M. kalpokasi and Holt et al. meanwhile hypothesize ecology similar to Osteolaemus and Paleosuchus in a 2008 presentation (tho the paper itself has not been published due to Holt seemingly moving from paleontology to astronomy).

It's not at all mentioned by Stein et al. 2013 (despite dealing with the ecology of Mekosuchus (instead favouring the term terrestrial) and John D. Scanlon notes in 2014 that no mekosuchine unguals from Riversleigh (admittedly not New Caledonia) suggest adaptations to climbing. Arboreality is also never mentioned by Stein et al. 2020 in a paper dealing with pelvic material of Riversleigh mekosuchines (a paper notably leaning towards terrestriality for Quinkana).

Probably most damning is the fact that arboreality is also not mentioned once in the large 2023 summary of Australasian crocodilians (in a way an update to the 1997 paper), despite the fact that Willis himself was involved as an author of the paper. Instead however, the paper cites potential nocturnal behavior as suggested by Holt.

I do hope that clears things up, as a big goal of mine while working with mekosuchines was to see how much truth really lies in such popular claims, and Mekosuchus being arboreal certainly stood out as something that was massively blown out of proportions by popular online sources and artists, kinda leading into a sort of feedback loop. Tho I suppose there is still hope, as to my knowledge new limb material of the island forms is currently in the works, so that might either put another nail in the coffin or force me to rewrite those sections (ideally tho I'll at least have the family page done by that point in time, procrastination be damned).

Sorry for the massive wall of text and do have a good day, I certainly appreciate the double checking even if in this case there is good reason for my choices. Armin Reindl (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:Hey, no worries. My edit was prompted by your removal of the citation needed tag, where in your edit summary you said: {{talkquote|citations are not needed in the lead, the corresponding info is cited down in the relevant section}} So I searched the rest of the article, and couldn't find any other mention of them being nocturnal. But since you said it was mentioned elsewhere in the article, I just took a guess and assumed that you initially meant "arboreal" instead of "nocturnal", since that arboreal theory is mentioned later. (I agree that the hypothesis is pretty much discredited by now, but it was a popular hypothesis at the time.) Anyways, I guessed wrong. But their being nocturnal should probably be mentioned down in the Mekosuchus#Paleobiology ↗ section. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think I used the phrase "foraged at night" or something along those lines in the ecology section, so that might explain why you didn't find the specific word "nocturnal" outside the lead. Obviously I'm happy to ammend the phrasing if you think that it might make things clearer.Armin Reindl (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah, you are right again. I see it there now. Oops. My apologies. It is fine as is, and I apologize for wasting your time. <sheepish smile> Cougroyalty (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

":Interstitial fauna ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstitial_fauna&redirect=no Interstitial fauna]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 15#Interstitial fauna}}''' until a consensus is reached.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit

I have reverted your edit removing my source. If you actually looked through the source, you would have found the information I was citing DankPedia (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:DankPedia}}The citation you added to the ''Gagrellopsis ↗'' page (a species of harvestmen ↗ "daddy-long-legs spider") was called: "Optimization of Block Division Considering Information Uncertainty" from the journal: ICCAS 2011: International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Varikkattu Karottu |first=K |last2=Hamada |first2=K |last3=Kitamura |first3=M |date=2011-09-20 |title=Optimization of Block Division Considering Information Uncertainty |url=https://doi.org/10.3940/rina.iccas.2011.49 |journal=ICCAS 2011: International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding |publisher=RINA |pages=23–30 |doi=10.3940/rina.iccas.2011.49}}</ref> That has nothing to do with these little arachnids. When I try to click the link to your source, I get an error. When I try to google it, nothing comes up. Maybe you made a mistake? But otherwise, it has nothing to do the ''Gagrellopsis'', even if it exists. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::I see, the ref is broken, let me fix that. DankPedia (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sciopithes obscurus ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antennae ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Crocodilia cladograms

Hey, I've seen that you've worked a lot on Crocodilia-related cladograms. So, I have a few questions about them.

1. The 2018 Lee & Yates cladogram is used on many pages, updated with 2021 Hekkala ''et al.'' data. However, the Hekkala ''et al.'' cladogram has different structure when it comes to ''C. rhombifer'', ''C. moreletii'', ''C. intermedius'' and ''C. acutus'' (see below), which does not appear to be reflected in the cladograms on Wikipedia. Is it by design, or just a mistake? But then, the 2023 study by Sales-Oliveira<ref name="Sales-Oliveira2023">{{cite journal |author=Sales-Oliveira, V. |author2=Altmanová, M. |author3=Gvoždík, V. |author4=Kretschmer, R. |author5=Ezaz, T. |author6= Liehr, T. |author7=Padutsch, N. |author8=Badjedjea G. |author9=Utsunomia, R. |author10=Tanomtong, A. |author11=Ciof, M. |title=Cross‑species chromosome painting and repetitive DNA mapping illuminate the karyotype evolution in true crocodiles (Crocodylidae) |journal=Chromosoma |volume=132 |year=2023 |pages=289–303 |doi=10.1007/s00412-023-00806-6}}</ref> ''et al.'' goes back to the structure from Lee & Yates, but denotes that ''C. rhombifer'' has one less chromosome pair than the other three, which ''might'' support the idea of its earlier divergence (don't quote me on that). So, the question here is, should the cladograms on Wikipedia be changed to correspond to Hekkala ''et al.'' or no?

{{Clade gallery
|caption1=Lee & Yates 2018
|caption2=Hekkala ''et al.'' 2021
|caption3=Sales-Oliveira ''et al.'' 2023

|cladogram1={{clade
|1={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus moreletii''
|2=''Crocodylus rhombifer'' }}
|2={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus intermedius''
|2=''Crocodylus acutus'' }} }}

|cladogram2={{clade
|1={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus rhombifer''
|2={{clade
|1={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus intermedius''
|2=''Crocodylus acutus'' }}
|2=''Crocodylus moreletii'' }} }} }}

|cladogram3={{clade
|1={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus moreletii'' '''(2n=32)'''
|2=''Crocodylus rhombifer'' '''(2n=30)''' }}
|2={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus acutus'' '''(2n=32)'''
|2=''Crocodylus intermedius'' '''(2n=32)''' }} }}
}}

Also, the 2023 study adds ''C. halli'', ''M. leptorhynchus'' and the unnamed ''Osteolaemus'' species, but their placement is more of an educated guess, as they didn't have genetic material to study. I'd say it's good enough until there are further studies, but what do you think?

2. What do you think about right alignment in cladograms? It's just a matter of preference, I guess, but it might be useful for some of them.

{{Clade gallery
|caption1=No alignment
|caption2=Right alignment

|cladogram1={{clade
|1={{clade
|1=1
|2={{clade
|1=2
|2={{clade
|1=3
|2=4 }} }} }} }}

|cladogram2={{clade
|1={{clade
|1={{clade|1={{clade|1=1}} }}
|2={{clade
|1={{clade|1=2 }}
|2={{clade
|1=3
|2=4 }} }} }} }}
}}

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem be a way to do it with just a parameter, so one has to do it manually, which isn't very pretty when you look at the source code.

It's also more of a preference thing, but what do you think about moving labels of geographical regions to the right?

{{clade |style=font-size:90%;line-height:85%
|label1=''Crocodylus ↗''
|1={{clade
|grouplabel1=Indo-Pacific
|bar1=black
|1={{clade
|1={{clade
|1={{clade|1={{clade|1=''Crocodylus johnstoni'' Freshwater crocodile ↗ }} }}
|2={{clade
|1={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus novaeguineae'' New Guinea crocodile ↗
|2=''Crocodylus halli'' Hall's New Guinea crocodile ↗ }}
|2={{clade|1=''Crocodylus mindorensis'' Philippine crocodile ↗ }} }} }}
|2={{clade
|1={{clade|1={{clade|1=''Crocodylus porosus'' Saltwater crocodile ↗}} }}
|2={{clade
|1={{clade|1=''Crocodylus siamensis'' Siamese crocodile ↗ }}
|2={{clade|1=''Crocodylus palustris'' Mugger crocodile ↗ }} }} }} }}
|2={{clade
|grouplabel1={{clade labels |label1=Africa |top1=80%}}
|bar1=black
|1={{clade|1={{clade|1={{clade|1=''Crocodylus suchus'' West African crocodile ↗ }} }} }}
|2={{clade
|bar1=black
|1={{clade|1={{clade|1=''Crocodylus niloticus'' Nile crocodile ↗ }} }}
|2={{clade
|grouplabel1={{clade labels |label1=Latin America|top1=85%}}
|bar1=black
|1={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus moreletii'' Morelet's crocodile ↗
|2=''Crocodylus rhombifer'' Cuban crocodile ↗ }}
|bar2=black
|2={{clade
|1=''Crocodylus intermedius'' Orinoco crocodile ↗
|2=''Crocodylus acutus'' American crocodile ↗ }} }} }} }} }} }}

3. Do we really need extinct species in cladograms on pages of extant species? It takes up a lot of space, and sometimes those extinct species don't add much value to the article and aren't mentioned in it (e.g. ''C. rhombifer'' ↗). On some pages though, I agree, it is appropriate (e.g. ''C. niloticus'' ↗).

I don't really want to make too many changes to all those pages if they're going to get reverted, so here I am now. Also, would it make sense to make templates for the most common cladograms, so they don't have to be edited on each page separately? Bohdan R. (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Bohdan R. (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

:1. I can't believe I missed that years ago when I first added those cladograms. I had to go back and check. My bad. Good catch! As for which to show, I kinda lean towards the most recent one? Perhaps on the individual pages for ''C. rhombifer'' and close relatives, you could show both versions. But I'll trust your judgement. You seem well-informed on the topic, and I've been less involved in crocodilian phylogeny lately. My top priority is just that the cited sources matches the shown cladograms.
:2. I didn't know that right alignment that you did was possible. I've tried something similar using non-breaking spaces, but then that opened up a whole other issue. See Template_talk:Clade#Whitespace_around_labels ↗. Ultimately, I think right-alignment can be useful in some situations. You just have to balance the benefits of aligning the text against the pitfalls of making the lines too long and harder for the reader to trace with their eyes. As for moving the geographical labels to the right, that makes sense. They aren't actually names of clades, so it can be odd having them in the cladogram itself.
:3. I agree that sometimes extinct species are helpful to show, and that also sometimes extinct species are not helpful to show. I am a firm believer in treating each page on a case-by-case basis, instead of forcing a standardized "one size fits all" approach. But this is probably why I lean against making templates for common cladograms. Sometimes I want to customize a cladogram by trimming off a branch that is not as important to show on certain pages, and just using a template kinda hides it.
:Anyways, I've noticed that you have been doing good work, and your instincts are sound. Keep it up! Cougroyalty (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}

Representative phylogenetic trees for the Neosuchia article

Hello again, long time no see. I've been looking at adding phylogenetic trees to the Neosuchia article demonstrating the branching order of non-eusuchian neosuchian groups (I think the trees that were already in the article, which I recently removed, are a bit old at this point, and too busy because they include too many end-members rather than just including the families, and include many extraneous eusuchians), but there appears to be quite a lot of variance between studies on the branching order of the various groups (e.g. https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/202/2/zlad195/7513556 ↗, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12589 ↗ ). Do you have any studies in particular that you'd recommend for their trees being largely representatitve of the broader consensus on this issue (if such a thing exists)? Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:Hemiauchenia}} Hello again! I have not kept up to speed with crocodilian-related phylogeny in the last few years, as my wikipedia interests tend to wander around, and I never really went farther back than Eusuchia ↗ in my editing, so I don't have any good recommendations for non-eusuchian neosuchian sources. However, four years ago, {{ping|User:Trilletrollet}} helped provide me with some good sources, (see link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trilletrollet#Thanks_for_your_work_on_crocodilian_evolution! ↗) so perhaps she could help you out now. Regardless, I'd be willing to help out with cladograms, navboxes, etc. if needed. Good luck! Cougroyalty (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Why you removed my edit on black caiman artical

you claimed it was 'unsoursed' wile I put a link on top of references of the sourse Landoncussans (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:Because you did not provide a valid source for the information you added. You added a link to a non-existant webpage called cricadilesoftheworld.co.uk. This doesn't exist. And you did not provide it in an in-line citation format. The existing information about Black caiman ↗ size measurements comes from a book reference, with appropriate in-line citations. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::ok? I'm not an expert but I found the website on google Landoncussans (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Crocodylus lucivenator

Hello Cougroyalty, thanks for your advice for my edit to the Crocodylus cladogram! I saw what you wrote but I don't really know what you meant? Were you saying I should replace the cladogram on C. lucivenator with the one that I made? Jacxiiiiii (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:Jacxiiiiii}} Hi there. Your edit to the ''Crocodylus ↗'' page was to add ''C. lucivenator'' to the existing cladogram on that page. The problem is that the cladogram specifically cites 2021 & 2023 studies, neither of which mention ''C. lucivenator''. If you want a cladogram that shows ''C. lucivenator'', you have to reference a study that provides such a cladogram. You can't just add a new species to an existing cladogram. (Some consider that to be WP:OR ↗ or WP:SYNTH ↗.) So if you want to change the cladogram currently shown on the ''Crocodylus'' page to show ''C. lucivenator'', you could use the one that is currently on the ''Crocodylus lucivenator ↗'' page, which references a 2026 study. So in a nutshell, you can't modify existing cladograms - instead, you have to completely replace cladograms with newer versions. I hope that makes sense. Cougroyalty (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
::Alright thanks! I'm pretty new to editing, thanks for being so helpful! Jacxiiiiii (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)