Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The current WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration article is Diplodocus.
Last month's winner was: Hypsilophodon.
Feel free to cast your vote for next week's article

[edit] Archives

  • Archive #1 - Opening discussions, reactivating the Project & disputes about stubs.
  • Archive #2 - Discussions about categories, classification, free journal articles, nomina dubia, and images.
  • Archive #3 - Discussions about nomenclature, outside collaborations, and the Pal(a)eosaurus mess.
  • Archive #4 - Discussions about copyright status, classification, pronunciation, image review, collaboration, Psittacosaurus getting featured, Dracorex on the front page, and the end of red links on the List of dinosaurs page.
  • Archive #5 - Discussions about redesign of the Project page, geological formations, classification, article layout and content, Europasaurus on the main page, and the beginning of an official collaboration.
  • Archive #6 - Discussions about classification taxonomy, anatomy, and Velociraptor getting featured.
  • Archive #7 - Discussions about Bambiraptor posing as Velociraptor, push for work, Zigong Museum, Tyrannosaurus rex and Lufengosaurus on the front page, maps\times\sizes, and categorization.
  • Archive #8 - Discussions of collaborations, trouble articles, nomina nuda, and images.

Contents


[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration log jam

OK - after asking Spawn man for the interim maintenance of the Collaboration (which has run out of steam recently) I had this idea; we had a bunch of successful nominations which had varying degrees of work as collaborations and probably offer the most potential towards the next FAC. Given that folk voted for them I figure that at least some are interested in them. I have listed all these so far and am asking for all interested parties to vote for the next one to really get stuck into. All have potential. November 15th as a date to chooe the next one will probably co-incide with Stegosaurus being nominated as a FAC. Cheers, Cas Liber 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I voted! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooo! Someone referred to me! Spawn Man 07:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dinobirds"

Elmo's recent addition of dozens of pages on true enantiornithan birds with little info other than the tag "dinobird" (what does that even mean?) is very damaging to the project. I'd try to clean up after him but I'm working on the road and only have around 15 minutes of net access a week. Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention--might also want to alert those who work on the prehistoric birds articles, as this mostly concerns them for a change ;) Dinoguy2 15:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this the other day, and blocked him temporarily. I consulted with User:Dys... (can't ever remember the ending) about what to do with the articles. They are mostly Enantiornithan, but a few others are mixed in, too. Will be sorting it out over the next few days. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that too. This guy was also doing some very strange things on the Allosaurus page, messing it out completely [1] and I had to revert all his edits. Seems to be a bit of a weirdo to me. ArthurWeasley 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's not resort to personal attacks. At the same time, I've got a quandry: should this user be blocked? The edits appear to be in good faith, but some (many?) are sub-standard quality. I have a feeling this user is a little kid. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel the same way. I think he really wants to contribute in some way but doesn't always know how to. Blocking him is clearly not a solution. It is not like he is vandalizing pages but maybe more like experimenting... We'd better monitor his future edits, revert when necessary and send him a note to explain why it was reverted. Patience is mother of all. ArthurWeasley 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that sounds like a plan. There are some decent edits in there, mixed in with the junk. If things get too bad, I will have to block, but at least this way, we know the account, so we know what to look for. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I've done some background checks on the most recent additions by Elmo and corrected the entries for Proornis, Valenticarbo, Quercypsitta, Incolornis and Alexornis. They were all listed as being some Cretaceous "dinobird". Turns out Valenticarbo is a Plio-Pleistocene Cormorant, Quercypsitta an early Eocene parrot and the others some enantiornithes This means that none of the edits by Elmo could be trusted and somebody will have to cross-check ALL the entries this user ever made (and there are a bunch of them). How should we proceed? I can do a few but not all of them ArthurWeasley 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
In light of this and other issues, I'm afraid I have no choice but to block him. I will help on the clean-up. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I will also help with the birds. Valenticarbo done, the hardest thing was digging up the refs. Dysmorodrepanis 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How shall I do the taxoboxes? For true "dinobirds", one could adopt part at least of the "saurian" lineage. For fossil modern birds, I'd do a bird-style taxobox I suggest. I am presently linking the articles to Fossil birds as appropriate so those that you don't already know are usually Elmo's. Dysmorodrepanis 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the difference is. How are bird taxoboxes different? If they are, they shouldn't be. Vive la standardization among metazoan taxoboxes! ;) Dinoguy2 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The phylogenetic lineup is what is different. Bird taxoboxes have "Class Aves", which does not really mix with dino taxoboxes :) Dysmorodrepanis 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
My vote is for Sereno, 1997. Aves = Archaeopteryx + Passer). Anything outside this clade is Class Sauropsida, etc. Or better yet, Chiappe, 1985... (Aves = feathers as in Passer) ;) Dinoguy2 21:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have set up the "dinobird" stub category and template for deletion. It is redundant, near-useless and misleading. Dysmorodrepanis 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all your fixes, Dys. I've put in my two cents on the deletion discussion page. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

The above discussion (and the listing at SFD of dinobird-stub) has led me to propose a couple of splits of dinosaur-stub and paleo-stub at WP:WSS/P. Input from this wikiproject would be most welcome! Grutness...wha? 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stegosaurus featured!

OK folks, Stegosaurus is featured (woohoo!) - big thanks to the cavalry who saved it after a messy failure of an FAC by me (I was never one to tidy up particularly well....). Have your say in the next collaboration - vote now..Cas Liber 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Sorry I had no time to actually contribute anything... but you guys did great :D Dinoguy2 21:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Cas was the impetus behind the FAC, and a look at all the edits he put in on the history page show just how much work he did on this thing. Crazy! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're anything like me, you'll give up on campaigning for people to vote Cas... Also, great work everyone on the article.... Spawn Man 07:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Stego is going to be on the Main Page November 27th! Firsfron of Ronchester 05:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Woo! That's really money. Enjoy your roasted phasianid maniraptoran everyone :)Dinoguy2 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation again

Hi, I decided to join this WikiProject because of pronunciations. I'd like to add International Phonetic Alphabet notation to all dinosaur articles, and I'm already familiar with it. I plan to base my work on Ben Creisler's Dinosauria Translation and Pronunciation Guide, but I'm a descriptivist, so if I add a rare/improbable pronunciation, please correct it to a more common one. I hope to get started soon. --Kjoonlee 17:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a dino barnstar, but nobody uses it other than me. I would like one, but asking would defeat the purpose... Hint hint! :) Ah, just defeated purpose! Anyway, will check it out... Spawn Man 06:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Sister Project

I thought some of you might be interested in the comparatively new Wikipedia:WikiProject Pterosaurs, which covers other animals of the same timeperiod and could probably use some help in the early stages. Badbilltucker 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

....and help get it off to a flying start? (sorry, couldn't resist ;) - sure. Cas Liber 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achievements

I've not been active on here for a while, so no doubt I've missed loads of exciting stuff, including Stegosaurus getting featured. Hooray! Didn't we used to have a list of our project's achievements somewhere? Soo 15:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Soo! We do have a list of achievements. It's here, but you can also access it at the top of the main project page. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Theropod Database

Poking around this morning, I found that The Theropod Database had moved from http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html to http://staff.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html . I hadn't heard about the change, and don't know if it's permanent. J. Spencer 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There were only a few links, so I fixed them. J. Spencer 16:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for updating all those links! There were definitely more than a few! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] New Category?

Recently, a new category, Category:Dinosaurs named in the 20th century has been created by user:Mitternacht90. The category was added to around 10 dinosaurs. If it is decided to use this category, it will need to be added to at least 500 more dinosaur articles. Additionally, it would be good to then have categories for dinosaurs named before and after this, too. What does the group think about this? Seems like a lot of work to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure this to be useful. The majority of dinosaurs have been named during the 20th century. ArthurWeasley 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what would be gained by having this article. Each dinosaur page should have the date when the generic name was erected. Anyway, how would such a page work in practice? Would every dinosaur generic name in the 20th Centuary be listed, or every dinosaur species named? If the latter, then this page would be an almost unending article. Mark t young 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The category would not be usefukl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs).
Alright, then, it appears we have consensus. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic

Anyone see this yet? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee, chickens the Forbidden Topic. But why would dudes already know about chickens?!? Well at least Fictional Jimbo Wales brought cupcakes! Mark t young 23:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha, the best :)Dinoguy2 03:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd fully support this plan, if it meant people would stop changing the length/height numbers on Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and T. rex; seems like people are changing those almost on a daily basis. V. annoying. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Hi - I just split off a large portion of this page into 3 archives, as it was getting very unwieldy. If someone would prefer a couple more of these discussions to be moved to Archive #8, I'm all for it.J. Spencer 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Justin. That's really appreciated. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citation Format

While working on a dozen or so refs for Othnielosaurus, I got to wondering if we should have a set citation format. I don't really care what's used, as long the author, year, title, and source get in there somehow, but it might be nice to have the use of italics, commas, periods, and so forth consistent. Or, maybe that's just me.J. Spencer 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a full set of guidelines at WP:MOS. Consistency is good. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dino collab production line

Hi everybody - Diplodocus is steadily shaping up to be nominated soon. There is a neck and neck race for the next nomination. I will be off and on in the next couple of weeks but the next nomiation will be decided next week, so vote if you want.Cas Liber 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's neck and neck then that puts Diplodocus at quite an advantage... Soo 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Except that the actual race is a three-way tie between Ankylosaurus, Triceratops, and Iguanodon. Who has the advantage? Iguanodon has the longest neck of the three, but Triceratops has the long brow horns. (Yes, this message was fairly useless...) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dino illustration collaboration

Hi Folks, we would like to coordinate a little bit efforts of different people to create illustration for dino articles, so that two artists won't inadvently work in parallel on the same project (as it turned out to be the case for Heterodontosaurus). Debivort came up with the excellent idea of having a "To do list" page where people can make a list of the most wanted pictures and artists could write down what they are currently working on or planning to do (a sort of sign-up sheet). I've made a temporary page at User:ArthurWeasley/To do list. If there is a concensus on the usefulness of such a page, I would gladly move it as a subset of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs page (not sure where to add it though). Note, "the most wanted" list is empty right now, who wants to fill it up? ArthurWeasley 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, shouldn't the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review page have a link in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs page so that it could easily be found. Personally, I didn't even know that page existed until Firs mentioned it to me last month. ArthurWeasley 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course there should be a link to the image page. I'm really surprised there isn't one. I guess our crack team of experts failed in that respect. But it's easily remedied. I would be glad to add some "most wanted" generic names! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Debivort has added the link. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Man, I could have sworn there was a link... might have been there previously and gotten lost in the shuffle? Any rate, thanks for adding it. The image sign-up is a good idea, by the way! Though, especially for longer articles, more than one illustration would not really be a bad thing.Dinoguy2 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you guys want to commission secondary images, just throw up a line on the sign up sheet - it'll work fine for that too. Debivort 22:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree it would be great to have a second image for a lot of these articles, most dinosaurs still don't even have one image. It seems a little unfair. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Page organization

Hey all - The Project page seems a bit jumbled to me - i.e. some of the heading/sub-heading architecture seems off. If no one thinks I should do otherwise, I'll take a crack at reorganizing the page, but will keep all the same content. Debivort 07:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to take a crack at it. It could definitely use some reorganization! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Dinosaurs_c719.html"