Talk:Compsognathidae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hbudigan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Compsognathidae related to Avialae?

Add the reference below to this page:

Hwang, S. H., Norrell, M. A., Qiang, J., Keqin, et. G. 2004. A large compsognathid from the Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 2(1):13-30.

The cladistic analysis in this paper recovered Compsognathidae within Maniraptora. 72.194.116.63 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 07.06 9 March 2007

The following discussion 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.

---

Proposal to merge/redirect Sinosauropterygidae to Compsognathidae: The traditional 'compsognathid' region of the theropod tree has been complicated by recent research suggesting that these taxa represent juvenile forms of various theropod lineages. In the recent description of two new 'compsognathid' species, the previously unused family 'Sinosauropterygidae' was revived based on the results of one analysis that found the new species, the Jehol compsognathids, and Mirischia to form a clade Compsognathus itself was not a member of. As such, Junsik1223 removed the Sinosauropterydiae redirect and expanded the page. I would argue this is premature since the results are still quite unstable and debated. 'Sinosauropterygidae' should be merged back to Compsognathidae, where this result can be best discussed in the context of that broader topic. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support We should only have articles on clades which are well established. This is still too tentative a hypothesis at the moment. A page can always be recreated if and when the hypothesis becomes better supported. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Support Actually I don’t mind if you simply merge it right now really (and now that I think of it, it was premature). This was created just in case the family becomes valid in the future (and if the details are discussed in Compsognathidae article, that’s fine by me). Junsik1223 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the reason, but I think we shouldn't merge either pages. More recent analyses support both views, and we should note that, saying in the page for Sinosauropterygidae that the group is possibly valid, and in the page for Compsognathidae saying the group is possibly polyphyletic, an unnatural group, if it hasn't already been done. Irritatorchallengeri313 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Merge of Sinosauropterygidae: shouldn't have happened?

I do agree that we could have merged both pages, but honestly: did we ever stop to think "should we?"? There are pages that could have been inside each other, like Sauropodiformes could be inside Sauropodomorpha. But it isn't. Sure, the page for Plateosauria was merged in Sauropodomorpha, but the Plateosauria article was a stub. The Sinosauropterygidae article wasn't a stub. The least that could have been done is type on the top "proposed family". With this idea, in theory the merge might now seem a bit extreme don't you think? Irritatorchallengeri313 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if it's a small subclade, I don't think it needs to be separate. The examples you list are much wider. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, that is what I found at the time, but more examples might show up. (Iritatorchallengeri313)

(talk) 04:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)