Talk:Polar dinosaurs in Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Polar dinosaurs in Australia is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
Am I right in thinking there was no polar ice cap during the Cretaceous? If so, this needs to be said in the article, to clarify the section on climate. The Singing Badger 15:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there was, (the scope of this article is about Northern Antartica at the time), but as soon as I can confirm it one way or another I slap it in!Sabine 15:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed there was no icecap. There was a six-month night, however. --Wetman 15:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Move page?
Should this article's title simply be Polar dinosaurs? It deals with dinosaurs found in both Australia and Antarctica and indeed it's not logical to treat the continents separately since they were joined together at the time. The Singing Badger 17:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's okay as is, South Polar Dinosaurs is kind of cumbersome and Polar Dinosaurs could also include the Polar Dinosaurs that migrated around Alaska. The juxtaposition of Polar and Australia makes it (which hopefully makes people think Australia and Anrarctica and not the Acrtic!). Sabine 18:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK... fair point about the North Pole :) ... but I'm now thinking that South Polar dinosaurs more accurately describes the contents of the article. Both titles seem equally cumbersome to me but one is a better description... thoughts? The Singing Badger 00:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Early Cretaceous Gondwana? There is more in this than dinos (much as I loooove dinos). Sabine 00:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh dear, it's starting to get very complicated! Let's wait and see if anyone else gives a toss... :) The Singing Badger 01:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Nothing jumps out as radically better than the current title. I think it's a little better than South Polar Dinosaurs because it's more specific, and the juxtaposition of "polar" and "Australia" hints that the world was very different then. —Michael Z. 04:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
- Yes, "Polar dinosaurs in Australia" is catchy, but not accurate. I'm for "Cretaceous Gondwana" or something similar. -- Kpalion 16:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Nothing jumps out as radically better than the current title. I think it's a little better than South Polar Dinosaurs because it's more specific, and the juxtaposition of "polar" and "Australia" hints that the world was very different then. —Michael Z. 04:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
- Oh dear, it's starting to get very complicated! Let's wait and see if anyone else gives a toss... :) The Singing Badger 01:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Early Cretaceous Gondwana? There is more in this than dinos (much as I loooove dinos). Sabine 00:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK... fair point about the North Pole :) ... but I'm now thinking that South Polar dinosaurs more accurately describes the contents of the article. Both titles seem equally cumbersome to me but one is a better description... thoughts? The Singing Badger 00:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There is an entry Cretaceous, which should have subsections "Laurasian fauna" and "Gondwana fauna" that discuss all the representative fauna of the Cretaceous continents, with a strong explicit link to this entry from "Gondwana fauna." This article is simply about Polar dinosaurs, and the briefest note in it might mention that there was no Cretaceous landmass at the north pole. --Wetman 16:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Eek! This makes my head hurt. This is a rather specific entry, Early cretaceous Gondwana - which at the time was only Antartica and Australia....but Polar Dinosaurs could surely also cover Jurrasic polar dinosaurs, Alaska's dinosaurs, etc etc. I've just been reading about them but info is a little harder to come by so the article is a ways off... I know, if we change it to Polar Dinosaurs then we can add a bunch of stuff on Northern dinosaurs, I don't have as much but I could dig some up some time in the next two weeks. The article won't suffer for being expanded in scope. sunbird 00:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The end product, "Polar Dinosaurs in Australia" has a syncopated lilt to it. (Was that their live tour album or their come-back album?) --Wetman 20:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"This combination of a habitable terrain with a long polar night is an ecological circumstance that has no present day analogue." Actually some parts of the Norwegian arctic go close. There is some forest, and historically has been agriculture and animal herding there. However it declines into tundra before you get as close to the pole as Dinosaur Cove probably was. Spitzbergen is very high in the arctic and by some definitions barely habitable. It has tundra vegetation and a few large animals.
