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
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
Obviously we don't need two separate articles for these, but I wonder if we should treat this page as Jeholornithiformes, rather than Jeholornithidae as it is currently? For one, Jeholornithidae returns only 19 results on Google Scholar, while Jeholornithiformes returns 42, and of those 19 there are even fewer publications that use Jeholornithidae exclusively, while at least one prefers Jeholornithiformes over Jeholornithidae (O'Connor et al., 2012). Furthermore, Wang et al. (2020) explicitly provide the first cladistic definition for either group as a clade, but only for Jeholornithiformes (thus providing an explicit, usable scope for what the clade contains), while otherwise almost entirely ignoring Jeholornithidae. This additionally goes for their phylogenetic analysis used in the article, which refers to what is within Jeholornithiformes but is ambiguous to nature of Jeholornithidae. Should the page then be moved to Jeholornithiformes instead? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 05:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Jeholornithidae does not exist cladistically, but the ICZN makes it valid while Jeholornithiformes in 'unregulated' (by the way, the proposed definition does not properly follow PhyloCode rules, so technically can't be valid even under that 'regulation'). Wikipedia generally uses the family name when the family and order have the same content (e.g. Struthionidae). Kiwi Rex (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
