User talk:Mark t young

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Please leave a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Mark t young, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Francs2000 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs

Hi Mark! Saw you added your name to the list of participants. Welcome to the team! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoeucrocodylia

Hi, thanks for you contributions to the croc articles! Far too few people working on those. Anyway, one thing I'm concerned about is the use of Mesoeucrocodylia as an order. Do you have a cite for a paper that names this clade as such? I've only seen a praphyletic Mesosuchia given that rank.Dinoguy2 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I have thought about it (as have others, there are numerous entries on talk pages discussing use of Linnean ranks vs pure phylogenetics). While I have no objection to having both systems discussed in the text (many pages have extensive sections presenting alternate cladograms), the use of unranked taxa in taxoboxes should be kept at a minimum. They were not designed with phylogenetic taxonomy in mind. If you wish to change this, I'd discuss it at Wikiproject Tree of Life or at the Taxobox Usage article. Anyway, I have no objection to using Mesoeucrocodylia in taxoboxes as an unranked taxon, but listing it as an Order is original research. You'll probably disagree with me here, but i have no objection to using the linnean system as a compliment to the cladistic system, and paraphyletic taxa can be useful in the former if handled properly (see Synapsida for a good example).Dinoguy2 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mekosuchin"

As a matter of fact Mekosuchinae does give origin to the adjective "mekosuchine" not "mekosuchin" as you unwittingly changed in Mekosuchinae as that would imply the clade Mekosuchini of infrafamily rank. You may refer to the legalities of the subject here [1], specially to this bit:

  • "taxon ends with -inae, vernacular ends with -ine"

Dracontes 10:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the vernacular name of any family level taxon is not regulated by the ICZN and as such there is no official way of changing the name ending. Any vernacular name ending -IN could refer to a subfamily, tribe or subtribe though in many papers people use it as denoting a tribe, but it is also used as denoting a subfamily.
One of the interesting matters in this problem is no-one has (to my knowledge) proposed a vernacular name for a subtribe.
The website you refered to in your post has no "legal" status on this matter i'm afraid, and although it would help to harmonise the community into using a common vernacularisation, until the ICZN in the fifth addition formalises this the problem will persist. Mark t young 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about ICZN rulings here, the point I'm making, as ineptly as I may have, is of common usage and linguistic consense. I made sure to make a search on Google for both terms before editing and "mekosuchin" only cropped up on the pages you've edited in the pertinent manner (6 hits against 327 also doesn't make for a good case).
And yet scientific articles seem to use such vernacular name guidelines with abandon nowadays [2]. Here's another one of 'em sites and when I talk "legalities" it's of the linguistic kind. As far as I know, those terms have been consistently transliterated this way and, in my honest oppinion, it's probable that any differences or similarities you may have perceived are of pronunciation.
Dracontes 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stegosaurus

Hi Mark,

I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. As you're listed as a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)

(Feel free to make any edits on the article itself, comment on the talk page, or leave a note on my talk page). Thanks for your time, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making these edits, Mark. I appreciate the fixes. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Right. Stegosaurus has been sent to Featured Article candidacy. You are welcome to weigh in on the matter (supporting or objecting); the opinion of a PhD student of dinosaur biology and evolution might carry a lot of weight. Anyway, thanks again for all your improvements to the article. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalry award

I hereby award the 'Coming of the Cavalry' Award for saving Stegosaurus after an ignominious fail...cheers, Cas Liber 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I hereby award the 'Coming of the Cavalry' Award for saving Stegosaurus after an ignominious fail...cheers, Cas Liber 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

Just adding my two cents here. Your work on Stegosaurus was instrumental. Thanks for all your work. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like the cavalry :) - yeah, I think the only thing that would be really good in the interim is getting some appraisal of what's left of partly worked-over articles and a few more people voting on the next cab off the rank for a collaboration, even if they don't have time to work on it, so it would be great if you had a quick look at the dino collaboration page and cast a vote on what you thought was next best to go on.....cheers Cas Liber 02:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

woooonderful boxes! If u dont mind, I rapped the one about 'hate' and adapted to Portuguese! Thank u! :) --Metaforico 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammar corrections to Stegosaurus

Hi -- I did three grammar corrections, which you reverted, I think just because you were in a hurry to undo some vandalism. I've redone them. I don't think they should be particularly controversial, e.g., there was one place where I corrected "laying" to "lying." ("Lay" is transitive, "lie" intransitive.)--24.52.254.62 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the reverts and...

Hi Mark!

Thanks for your note; sorry if it seemed presumptuous of me to mention your userpage, but it just worried me. Anyway, let us bask in the glow of our Featured Article appearing on the Main Page. Do you think you might stick around for the next one? :) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the goal: to get Diplodocus up to FA status. I really haven't done much work on it, but I saw your name pop up on it more than once. So now I'm headed over there... Thanks for all your work on WP:Dinos. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the latest version of the article is the same as Arthur Weasley's edit at 20:07. [3]. To revert to an earlier version, go into the history, compare the version you want with the vandalized version, hit 'edit' on the "good" version, then hit 'save'. All the vandalized versions after the "good" version will be reverted. Also, don't worry too much about the vandalism; there are enough eyes patrolling the page that it's getting fixed very quickly. So don't sweat it. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dakosaurus

Hey Mark, thanks for your comments on Dakosaurus. I've put an osteoderm-free version with more paddle-like forelimbs (wasn't apparently obvious enough in the drawing)on my todo list and this should be available shortly for your review. How sure are we that Metriorhynchids were lacking osteoderms. Somehow, the few web available full body representations of Dakosaurus seem to show osteoderms (see [4] and [5])? The answer to your other question is no, I haven't attempted to draw animals in their natural setting: I am of the lazy type ;) ArthurWeasley 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so "lazy" he's done over 40 extinct fauna illustrations in the past month. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Mark, I am quite interested in illustrating more crocs (if possible with a degree of accuracy that withstands scientific scrutiny), problem is there is so much info on dinos on the web and so few on the other prehistoric animals (a pity!). Can I contact you by email? I have a few questions to ask you. May be you could just send a message to aweasley@hotmail.com and I'll reply to you. ArthurWeasley 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images for you to review

Mark, here is the new version of Dakosaurus andiniensis without osteoderms and a slender built based on the skeletal of D. maximus. Also, Suchodus casamiquelai. Let me know what you think.ArthurWeasley 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dakosaurus andiniensis

Suchodus casamiquelai
Yep, dorsal views will be much helpful. Thanks! ArthurWeasley 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three more

Thanks very much for your dorsal views of the skulls. ArthurWeasley 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dakosaurus maximus

Geosaurus suevicus

Sarcosuchus imperator

[edit] Teleidosaurus

Concerning Teleidosaurus if there is no postcrania, how do we know that it had osteoderms as you mentioned earlier? Is it only a guess in view of its phylogenetical position closer to the basal metriorhynchids? Also, do you have something on Enaliosuchus? Thanks. ArthurWeasley 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teleidosaurus and Enaliosuchus

Here are the sketches for Teleidosaurus and Enaliosuchus. Teleido based on the skull figures you sent me and body somewhat of a metriorhynchus with a bit of pelagosaurus in it. Enalio based on the skull fragments described in the french paper. Body was made more profiled than the basal metriorhynchids more in-line with a sustained swimmer. Question: Suchodus is said to be a synonym of metriorhynchus in the wiki article. However, the skull of M. (S.) casamiquelai seem quite different from the other species of metriorhynchus. Could Suchodus not be a synonym after all? ArthurWeasley 08:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Teleidosaurus

Enaliosuchus

[edit] Metriorhynchus and Pelagosaurus

Two more metriorhynchids. ArthurWeasley 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Metriorhynchus superciliosus

Pelagosaurus
Mark, Happy 23rd birthday! For M. brachyrhynchus, there is no hurry, I could work on hundreds of different things in the meantime. Good luck with your PhD trips. ArthurWeasley 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NHM article

Hi Mark

It would be great if you could have a look at the new stuff I've added for the NHM article, and review/comment/edit. As I've said on the talk page, I think it could really do with a section on current and past research endeavours, and you maybe just the man to take it on. Might be also good to have a brief subsection on the Wandsworth site? I know nothing about it (my main source on the NHM's history only goes up to 1980 and doesn't mention it).

Ta,

Loxlie 03:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMark_t_young_3ad6.html"