[015]
Anomalocaris55
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one troper). Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' and \'\'Eusmilus\'\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one troper). Just because it appears in a few books - particularly educational or encyclopedic books - does not mean it qualifies as Stock. Many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Eusmilus\\\'\\\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one user). Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' and \'\'Eusmilus\'\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one troper). Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Eusmilus\\\'\\\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one user, ~@/laplaneteetlesoleil). Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' and \'\'Eusmilus\'\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one user). Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Eusmilus\\\'\\\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' and \'\'Eusmilus\'\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one user, ~@/laplaneteetlesoleil). Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Eusmilus\\\'\\\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' and \'\'Eusmilus\'\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Eusmilus\\\'\\\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' - which doesn\'t have an entry time and \
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Eusmilus\\\'\\\' - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' - which doesn\'t have an entry time and \
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The StockDinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' - which doesn\\\'t have an entry time and \\\"the whale\\\'s ancestry question\\\" (which seems more scientific than pop-cultural) listed as the trope maker - provide no reason why they should be seen as even low-tier stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, not StockDinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the StockDinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. Entries like \'\'Mesonyx\'\' - which doesn\'t have an entry time and \
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' - which doesn\\\'t have an entry time and \\\"the whale\\\'s ancestry question\\\" (which seems more scientific than pop-cultural) listed as the trope maker - provide no reason why they should be seen as even low-tier stock. Information for obscure like these belongs on UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. Entries like \\\'\\\'Mesonyx\\\'\\\' - which doesn\\\'t have an entry time and \\\"the whale\\\'s ancestry question\\\" (which seems more scientific than pop-cultural) listed as the trope maker - provide no reason why they should be seen as even low-tier stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, and may begin doing so myself if the troper unilaterally expanding these pages does not respond. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion and attempt pinging ~@/laplaneteetlesoleil. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, and may begin doing so myself if the troper unilaterally expanding these pages does not respond. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, and may begin doing so myself if the troper unilaterally expanding these pages does not respond. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion and attempt pinging ~@laplaneteetlesoleil. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, and may begin doing so myself if the troper unilaterally expanding these pages does not respond. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion and attempt pinging ~@/laplaneteetlesoleil. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, and may begin doing so myself if the troper unilaterally expanding these pages does not respond. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m going to revive this discussion and attempt pinging ~@/laplaneteetlesoleil. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \'\'Scipionyx\'\' and \'\'Gasosaurus\'\' are not stock in the same way \'\'Spinosaurus\'\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, and may begin doing so myself if the troper unilaterally expanding these pages does not respond. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
to:
I\\\'m going to revive this discussion and attempt pinging ~@laplaneteetlesoleil. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope. Just because it appears in a few books does not mean it qualifies as Stock; many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. \\\'\\\'Scipionyx\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'Gasosaurus\\\'\\\' are not stock in the same way \\\'\\\'Spinosaurus\\\'\\\' is stock. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to UsefulNotes/PrehistoricLife, and may begin doing so myself if the troper unilaterally expanding these pages does not respond. Looking at the discussion page, this issue has happened before.
