Talk:Dyoplosaurus

Dinosaurs Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by The Ankylosauria Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).

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

Valid genus?

The Paleobiology Database[1] redirects Dyoplosaurus to Euoplocephalus, which would suggest its remains are considered to belong to that genus. Is Dyoplosaurus still valid? Jerkov 10:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dinosaur Genera List, which we were using as the basis for our redirects, does not list Dyoplosaurus as a junior synonym of anything. Sheep corrected our list according to that list, which is not official, but which was compiled by various professionals (including G.O. himself), on the Dinosaur Mailing List, and is generally accepted.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

john patrick l. mauleon

dinosaurus ankylosaurus (998-4,989 kilograms) 35 feet 9 feet 1-5 tnnes (10 meters) (2 meters) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.121.31 (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical??

It says at the top of the article that "this page may be too technical for most readers" but only people with some scientific knowledge will be coming across this page in the first place. Hence, not too technical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.61.156 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Does anyone have newer cladistics to add? KentrosaurusBoi (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]