Talk:Troodon

Dinosaurs Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

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

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

There should probably be more information on the Prince Creek Remains

The page mentions that Troodon fossils there are from much larger species, but we should probably have the exact sizes listed Crylophosaurus (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if much has been published on it, and I suspect it will be named as a new genus, so the info won't belong here anyway in the end. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

highly doubt it is a new genus, but okay Crylophosaurus (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it isn't a new genus, it might just as well be Stenonychosaurus. Better to wait until there's actually a publication that determines it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wut...

... the heck you mean "potentially dubious"? Troodon is nothing but a nomen dubium, no potentially, because it's indeed dubious Touch some grass (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A group of researchers is still using the name for specimens from the Two Medicine Formation, so it is quite a bit less settled than that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scientists in the paper which is often said to be the paper that proved Troodon invalid actually only said it may become dubious in the future, so that paper essentially said that Troodon is potentially dubious Crylophosaurus (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]