Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Cardabiodon.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cardabiodon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Cardabiodon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cardabiodon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that Cretoxyrhina has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 4 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

lamniformes

Thank you for quality articles about extinct fish of prey such as Cretoxyrhina )your first TFA) and Cardabiodon, for beginning with substantial article improvement, for defending the impact of extinct animal on today's world, - fishy swimmer, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2304 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alopias palatasi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Alopias palatasi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alopias palatasi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Alopias palatasi at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Macrophyseter|<b><i><font style="font-family: Mistral"><font color="#0000">Macrophyseter</font></font></i></b>]] &#124; [[User talk:Macrophyseter|<font style="font-family: Consolas"><font color="#0000">talk</font></font>]] : Macrophyseter | talk

to

[[User:Macrophyseter|<b><i style="font-family: Mistral; color:#000">Macrophyseter</i></b>]] &#124; [[User talk:Macrophyseter|<span style="font-family: Consolas; color:#000">talk</span>]] : Macrophyseter | talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've updated the signature tags to as you've suggested. Thanks a lot! Macrophyseter | talk 07:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alopias palatasi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is the only one of its kind to possess serrated teeth (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alopias palatasi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cretalamna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moroccan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mosasaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Megacephalosaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aven13 -- Aven13 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Megacephalosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Megacephalosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aven13 -- Aven13 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Megacephalosaurus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mosasaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fluting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Mosasaurus. Expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Megacephalosaurus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Megacephalosaurus was one of the last known pliosaurs and coexisted with some of the earliest mosasaurs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Megacephalosaurus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lockyear (1976, p. 271) gives the weight of Bryde's whale caught during Japanese whaling operations. The heaviest was a 13.8 m individual that weighed 16.15 tons. Bryde's that were of a similar length (12.8 m) to the type specimen of Rice's whale weighed roughly 12-15 tons. Sei whales of similar length were also of roughly the same weight (p. 271). She even lists a 12.9 m humpback that weighed 27.7 tons (p. 272). So how is a humpback (easily the most robust member of its family) and a Rice's whale (like all the members of its genus, very slender) going to weigh the same? BulbousCow (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BulbousCow:

I appreciate your reaching out to my talk page. I've done a little bit of investigation myself, and it does seem that the few more recent studies that touch on the weight of large mysticetes largely corroborate the weight measures in Lockyear (1976). I haven't looked into the literature when you first brought up the issue, though I am a bit confused on how the NOAA would provide such a likely overestimate.

Although I am not aware of any explicit measurements of Rice's whale (I do not have full access to Rosel et al. (2021) at the moment, so I don't know if they measured the holotype during its necropsy), we can substitute for a more implicit weight estimate by mentioning the known weights of Bryde's whales of the same size, or corresponding to a size-weight function (an example of the latter would be saying that a Rice's whale length of 12.65 m would correspond to about 13.9 tons based on a length-weight function developed by Ohsumi (1980) (see Kato & Perrin (2009) since the 1980 paper isn't available online)). Macrophyseter | talk 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 16 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rice's whale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the newly described Rice's whale (example pictured) is one of the most endangered cetaceans, with fewer than 50 adult individuals believed to remain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rice's whale. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rice's whale), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 35,157 views (1,464.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your DYK hook about Rice's whale and its precarious status as an endangered species drew 35,157 page views (1,465 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the second most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place near the top of the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mosasaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Mosasaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mosasaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rice's whale you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Rice's whale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rice's whale for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, Macrophyseter! The article you nominated, Mosasaurus, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your part in the FAC!! Macrophyseter | talk 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Mosasaurus (estimated annual readership: 420,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Mosasaurus (estimated annual readership: 420,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Two years!

Thank you today for Mosasaurus, introduced: "This article will be the first article about a mosasaur (or any extinct marine reptile apex predator) to receive a FAC. It is about the type genus of the mosasaurs, which is one one of the largest marine predators in history. It is also quite culturally significant. The stories of its fossils are historically and culturally significant in the Netherlands and France, and they stood alongside the mastodon and Megalosaurus as the pioneering fossils that helped develop concepts like extinction and the precursors of evolution. Thanks to films like Jurassic World the genus today is among the most iconic prehistoric creatures. In addition, we know a substantial deal about the biology of the animal, which I've summarized the spectrum of breadth of in this article, covering just about every published literature that touches on the genus."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Macrophyseter, I know that you are currently very busy with your articles on mosasaurs, but knowing that you are a great enthusiast of these creatures, I thought to myself if we could collaborate for the expansion of my draft that I am doing with Taniwhasaurus, if ever you have the sources that allow you to do such a thing. Amirani1746 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Amirani1746, thanks for reaching out! Expanding the article sounds amazing, but I am currently not sure how much time I have available to be an active contributor as I am juggling an especially busy winter; if I am available it would probably be a little next week. But seeing what you have already added, I think you have already done a phenomenal job! Macrophyseter | talk 06:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Macrophyseter Thank you very much for the answer! As a reminder, I continue to take care of the expansion while waiting for your contribution. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hello again Macrophyseter, i have updated Taniwhasaurus and expanded the article concerning Kaikaifilu, what do you thinks about these both for obtain the GA ? Amirani1746 (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Amirani1746 I think the Taniwhasaurus article looks pretty good! Really appreciate the neurovascular diagram you drew in particular. Less sure about how well Kaikaifilu will fare because it seems to be a taxon with poor foundations that has a chance of being declared nomen dubium in the future. If you feel confident about both articles, you should go ahead and put them up for review. As long as you remain up to date on addressing the reviewer's comments I'm sure they will pass given the current level of quality. Macrophyseter | talk 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Macrophyseter thanks a lot for your compliments. I thought that as you have access to more sources than me on Taniwhasaurus (some of which are available for a fee), you could help me expand on certain points in the article that I potentially forgot. As for Kaikaifilu, although its fossils are very poorly preserved, I am not sure if it will be declared nomen dubium in the future, because it has notable differences with other tylosaurines. Furthermore, even if this were the case, it would not even have prevented labeling because many taxa that are in this case are already labeled. For example, this is notably the case of the article concerning the elasmosaurid Scanisaurus. Amirani1746 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Are there any specific sources you can't access for Taniwhasaurus? I think the article as is already strong for a genus that isn't as well-represented, and the forgotten points you mention may be things that will get addressed during a review.

  I personally don't oppose a GA-status article of Kaikaifilu at this time, but wanted to comment that its notability as an article may be threatened if new fossils and a taxonomic revision thoroughly kills the taxon (as unlike Scanisaurus, it lacks much historical notability being been named only 7 years ago). Even with differences with other tylosaurines, it's disputed whether the holotype is diagnostic at the subfamily level at all. Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell presented an abstract detailing their personal observations mentioned in the 2019 tylosaurine paper here [1] (page 41 of pdf). The one trait considered diagnostic in Otero et al. (2017) that isn't explicitly mentioned in the abstract (the lateral process before the orbits) might not be worth much because we currently don't have fossils of that region in Moanasaurus and so there's a chance it might have it too.

  It is true that Scanisaurus might continue to be labeled despite its dubious status, but this is generally a bad practice with the colors of a wastebasket taxon that's only done by people who either don't have the resources to deal with the hassle of taxonomic clean-ups, have a bias towards slapping names on fossils, or don't feel established enough to consider their putative opinions sufficiently authoritative. Macrophyseter | talk 18:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hello again Macrophyseter, here are the titles of the two sources which could help me to better finalize the article and their usefulness:

  • Gregory S. Paul (2022). The Princeton Field Guide to Mesozoic Sea Reptiles. Princeton University Press. pp. 166–176. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2hnkc6h. ISBN 978-0-69-119380-9. S2CID 251553177. (For the size and body mass of T. antarcticus)
  • Marta Fernández; James E. Martin (2009). "Description and phylogenetic relationships of Taniwhasaurus antarcticus (Mosasauridae, Tylosaurinae) from the upper Campanian (Cretaceous) of Antarctica". Cretaceous Research. 30 (3): 717–726. Bibcode:2009CrRes..30..717F. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2008.12.012. S2CID 129028759. (for more little details about T. antarcticus)

  Amirani1746 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As someone who knows next to nothing about cetaceans, I saw an article about Rice's whale being critically endangered, and looked here at WP for information. What an excellent and thorough article -- thank you! But I'd like to make a couple of suggestions:

• Appearance and coloring: The illustration, three photos together labeled "Variations in dorsal fins and backs", can seem to an inattentive reader to show that the dorsal fin can be located close behind the head, or at the rear, or in the center of the back, since we see neither head nor flukes in any of them. I think this caption needs to better clarify what the photos are intended to show. My own first impression was that the white in the top photo was light reflection, and in the other two, at water level, was churn foam rather than actual marks on the whales' bodies. The author's description "variability in slight white body wash coloration between the dorsal fin and blowhole" seems unhelpfully worded to me, but did disabuse me of what I was looking at; nor do I see a blowhole in any of the three photos. (The bottom photo shows some sort of small indentation in the whale's side, posterior to the dorsal fin, which is surely not a blowhole.)
• In the second paragraph of this section the word "peduncle" is linked to an illustration of fish fins, which is bad enough given that some readers may not understand that no whale is ever a fish. As best I understand the word "peduncle" it would refer to where the tail flukes are attached to the body. But the dab page for the word, at caudal peduncle, mentions only fish, not cetateans. If the word "peduncle" is the technical term for the flukes' attachment in cetaceans, the dab page for the word should be fixed to include them.

Milkunderwood (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't think it's necessary to have three articles. If you're just going to make Mosasaur about Mosasauridae, then having a separate stub article for Mosasauroidea separate from Mosasauria seems redundant, given that it could easily be covered in the Mosasauria article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize if my actions are too decisive, but I found it necessary to set some clarifications in order about mosasaur taxonomy and semantics to avoid further confusion. The stub status is temporary, and there's quite an amount of sources available to make a well-written distinct article for whoever would like to take it on. Regarding redundancy, mosasauroids are regarded as quite distinct from dolichosaurs (as Slate Weasel pointed out in the Mosasaur talk page), and aigialosaurs are furthermore treated as a distinct grouping from mosasaurs (including by the snake chapter you linked). It's hence arguably the smoothest to split the mosasaur article along those lines. Since most aigialosaurs are not classified in either Aigialosauridae or Mosasauridae in current literature, a separate Mosasauroidea article would be the best option to adequately represent them.

Hope to discuss this further in the Mosasaur talk page, Macrophyseter | talk 22:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]