Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration article is Deinonychus. Last month's winner was: Thescelosaurus. Feel free to cast your vote for next month'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.
• Archive #9 - Stegosaurus featured, pronunciation/translation issues, dinosaur illustration collaboration, Diplodocus FAC, and logistics.
• Archive #10 - "Unicerosaurus" saved from deletion, thagomizer comic, FACs of Diplodocus and Triceratops, discussion of policy for nomina nudums, nomina dubia, and synonyms.
• Archive #11 - dead links, voting for collaborations, GA candidates, and the FAC for Iguanodon.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Clean-up of articles which are too technical 3 Iggy's up!!! 4 The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs = video game magazine ??? 5 Copyrights and cladogram complexity 6 Voting on next collab......... 7 Parasaurolophus 8 Clade Template: for all your cladistic and phylogenetic needs 9 Nanotyranus 10 Margaret Colbert 11 Nannotyranus 12 Help with Sea Monsters Project! 13 New Releted WikiProject 14 Archaeopteryx 15 Categories 16 Oryctodromeus 17 Request to nom 18 Archives 10 and 11 created 19 Papers on Styracosaurus? 20 I'm on a mission 21 Round up! 22 Taaa Daaaa!!!!! Surprise!!!!! 23 Archie is featured! 24 Thescelosaurus FAC 25 Minor classification problem 26 Illustration Guideline Clarification please 27 Help = You

[edit] Clean-up of articles which are too technical

There are a few dinosaur articles that are so technical that I cannot imagine they'd be useful to mainstream readers. I've just done a bit of clean-up on Tyrannotitan, which read like a formal description (still does, really). This one needs work, and there are several ankylosaur articles which also need similar assistance. Any volunteers? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how about a list? I've done a bit of that on a few. Some of the newer ones...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iggy's up!!!

Congrats to all who worked on Iggy - absolutely fantastic job. Well done! cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Let's go to London, take the top off of the standing model, and hold a banquet. :) J. Spencer 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh! At least there would be more room this time! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I went there yesterday. It's quite nice really.... Spawn Man 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs = video game magazine ???

Started with Iguanodon, wikisurfed to The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs. There's some pretty odd text in there, for example, "Curiously the dinosaurs were reported by the media during their building in a way that a video game magazine would take interest in and report on an upcoming video game and though they failed to meet their deadline, when the models were unveiled they were subject to mass media coverage. Hawkins benefited greatly from the public's reaction to them, which was so strong it lead to what could be considered the first case of tie-in merchandising as a set of smaller versions of Hawkins' models were sold for £30 as educational products." Anybody care to take a stab at deciphering / cleanup? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I had cleaned up this article a bit a while back, and had assumed it was written by someone familiar with video games (or video game magazines). Originally, the text had many run-on sentences (20 or so) which I broke into smaller chunks for reader digestion. I really didn't know what to do with the video game reference, but the rest seems fairly clear to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say though Writtenonsand, the way you discovered the text there was like the way Pacman uncovers those little small round things on the screen. Quite remarkable. ;) Spawn Man 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights and cladogram complexity

I was planning on making some more cladograms ala the one for Iguanodon, but I was wondering if anyone thought we could get in trouble if they were too close to the published versions. For example, I have Curry-Rogers's sauropod book with her titanosaur study, which at this point is the best, most detailed study of the group. If I wanted to draw a version of that, should I use all the genera she uses, or should I eliminate some of the less well-known genera and clade names while preserving the spirit of the cladogram, in order to avoid a direct copy? I did something similar on the Iguanodon cladogram, but in that case it was more because I wanted it to be focused on Iggy and its closest friends. J. Spencer 15:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea, here, J. The last thing we want to do is infringe on any copyrights. Derivative works of copyrighted works are still copyvios, but I think it's more like quoting a short passage from a book: it doesn't infringe on the author's right to make money (because people who are interested can see the full version in her book). I really, really like the cladogram you made for Iguanodon. It sums up the authors' work, eliminating the more obscure genera (following the ideas behind summary style), while still attributing the work to the author.

You probably already know this, but the Project has agreed to use Benton's 2004 cladogram (for consistency within the project); more detailed cladograms can be used (especially if recent findings have overturned anything since 2004), but we want to be careful and not contradict ourselves on different pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we're using Benton's taxonomy but not his cladogram... in fact I don't believe Benton 2004 includes a cladogram? Mainly it's just a guide for ranks in the taxoboxes, but even that doesn't seem to work so well on the theropod side since he uses so many unconventional ranks. I'm starting to lean towards the Paleobiology Database for theropod ranks, which lists their publication info, etc., though Benton seems to be very good for Ornithischians. As long as you're not ranking things, use the latest and greatest cladograms available ;) Dinoguy2 00:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay; I'll use my discretion. Curry-Rogers doesn't add anyone to the group that hadn't already been there, so that analysis should match up with Benton's higher-level classifcation. Anything using basal ornithischians is going to be a real trick; you can have your heterodontosaurids as ornithopods (Norman et al in The Dinosauria II), marginocephalian relatives (Yinlong paper), or basal to the ornithopod/marginocephalian split (Butler, 2005 [Stormbergia], which is not even saying what he presented at the 2005 SVP...). J. Spencer 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Until we get some really unequivocal evidence, the basal ornithischians are a mess. Even after 200 years of study, we still can't be 100% sure Ornithischia and Saurischia have a common ancestor within Dinosauria. One or two good finds could reshape the whole group. Not to mention the lack of primitive Genasaurians (Echinodon is Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous, according to Thescelosaurus), and Cerapod(ians?). Since you are one of the "few people who care about primitive ornithischians", what's your take, J (or should I check your site for your position)?Firsfron of Ronchester 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, fortunately Dinosauria by definition includes the ornithischians and saurischians, but that may or may not cover some of the really basal critters (Eoraptor, Staurikosaurus, Herrerasaurus). The recent work on Revueltosaurus throws a lot of questions on any attempt to classify poor remains from the Triassic. The real problem with ornithischians is the fact that it's obvious what the derived members of any group look like, but the basal ones all run together as little beaked bipedal things. Richard Butler and Fabien Knoll have been the people working on the really basal stuff lately, and there is some work in progress on hypsils, but it'll probably be five years before all of these reports have come out. My guesses: heterodontosaurs are either marginocephalian relatives or basal to the cerapod split; we end up with a knot of fabrosaurs/agilisaurs that people argue about for the next several decades; if the heterodontosaurids aren't marginocephalians, marginocephalians split off after the agilisaurs; and hypsils stay paraphyletic. Thescelosaurus in particular just seems weirder and weirder the more we know about it. J. Spencer 20:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's Titanosauria:

Note that she uses Nemegtosaurinae, whereas we use Nemegtosauridae, and Saltasauridae instead of Titanosauridae; those two issues are really just tomatoe-tomatoh and easily dealt with in the text, but I'll do something about it if they're too distracting. J. Spencer 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's beautiful, and I don't think the -inae/-idae issue is... an issue. However, you may want to stick ii in the Image Review section; I'm pretty sure Dinoguy is watching IR, and he may have additional comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't quite right with the Nemegtosauridae thing; she actually called it the "Rapetosaurus clade" in the article (unsurprising, as Rapetosaurus is her "baby"), but that's where a Nemegtosaurinae would be, had she elected to name it. Clade by implication. J. Spencer 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Maybe it would be possible to draw the arrows in a slightly different color, so it wouldn't look like the Nemegtosaurinae aren't branching off both the Saltasauridae and the group leading up to the Ophistocoelicaudia? I realize it's quite apprent this isn't happening in the full-sized version, but many people won't click on the thumbnail. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. I made it in greyscale, but there ought to be something I can do to differentiate the arrows. J. Spencer 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's no longer a problem with Nemegtosaurinae removed per Dinoguy's observation on the IR page, but I'll still give it some thought, because I'm bound to run into an inconvenient internal clade somewhere if I keep doing these. J. Spencer 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting on next collab.........

OK folks, after some amazing work on Iggy and Compy (and Archie by the looks of things), there's a bunch of candidates for the next collab and possibly no backlog (!). Now Thescelosaurus leads but a whole bunch of other dinos are tied for 2nd spot. Who will win.....take your chance and vote now....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - stats:

• generally we have 4 theropods, 2 ceratopsians, 1 sauropod, 1 stegosaur (or thyreophore as you like), and 1 ornithopod.
• temporally we have 6 cretaceous and 3 jurassic
• geographically we have 5 Nth American, 2 Asian and 2 European dinos (All from the Nthn Hemisphere!)

Something to think about anyway...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration -- Writtenonsand 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - Given Thescelosaurus is polishing up so well I have fast tracked the next vote to April 1st (instead of mid-april), so knock yerselves out..........cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parasaurolophus

Just a note - this needs expanding in the species section. Actually, this could be an FA one day..cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in all reality, all but the most unknown dino could eventually become an FA... Spawn Man 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's get started on "Unicerosaurus"! ;) (Sorry for being flippant). Firsfron of Ronchester 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see your Unicerosaurus and raise you a Scrotum humanum. :-) -- Writtenonsand 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not betting my Scrotum humanum! Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Realistically though, some seem to be easier than others. I found Stegosaurus and Triceratops harder to mould for some reason, than Diplodocus - I see Compy and Archie as pretty coherent really. Parasurolophus has 3 species and there's oodles of stuff on the nasal cavity thingy. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, big hint to vote.......:) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clade Template: for all your cladistic and phylogenetic needs

Look what I found at Ecdysozoa!

And a pertinent experiment:

Ornithodira	Scleromochlus Pterosauria Dinosauromorpha Lagerpeton Dinosauriformes Marasuchus unnamed Silesaurus unnamed Eucoelophysis Dinosauria Ornithischia Saurischia  ? Herrerasauridae Herrerasaurus Staurikosaurus unnamed Eoraptor Eusaurischia Theropoda Sauropoda

Dracontes 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC) and Dracontes 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I like that things can be linked. J. Spencer 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried it out with Titanosauria, at Clade experiments. The only problem I'm having is how it handles unnamed clades; their "stems" become very short, crowding that part of the tree. J. Spencer 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for lack of a better thing let's use this HTML snippet: <font color="white">unnamed</font> for unnamed clades. That's what I used on the expanded example above. Dracontes 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! J. Spencer 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

	Macronaria Camarasaurus Titanosauriformes Brachiosaurus Somphospondylii Euhelopus Titanosauria Phuwiangosaurus unnamed Lirainosaurus Saltasauridae Lithostrotia Saltasaurinae Neuquensaurus Saltasaurus unnamed Magyarosaurus unnamed Malawisaurus unnamed Nemegtosaurus Rapetosaurus Opisthocoelicaudiinae Alamosaurus Isisaurus Opisthocoelicaudia

Here's Titanosauria. It's not as flashy as the Photoshop diagram, but it's a thousand times better than the "dash and slash" style, and it also has the advantage of being easily modified by anyone, as opposed to the Photoshop diagram, which can be easily modified only by me. J. Spencer 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me that's not sweet (although overly detailed and too close to the real one). J. Spencer 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about all the technicalities in paleontology, but you guys seem excited about this & it does look pretty cool. Can we use this template on all our dino articles, or only ones which need it? Etc? Hopefully we can our articles looking the best out of wikipedia... Spawn Man 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest only higher-level groups (family and above), except for flagship genus articles and/or those genera that don't easily fit into a family (hypsils, iguanodonts, basal coelurosaurs, some basal ceratopsians). J. Spencer 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is super cool! Once I figure out the code, I'll have to replace the ASCII cladograms on some of my favorite theropod groups :) Dinoguy2 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Before this turns into a procession of cladograms I've created this to show both you and the creator of the template some problems we may have and a way to spiffy this up Dracontes 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the definitions with the cladogram, but then the cladogram starts to get crowded. Perhaps the definitions could be footnotes, or something similar? (by the way, that Ornithodira cladogram is fantastic!) J. Spencer 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think definitions should be restricted to/discussed in the text. That way the history of/variability of definitions can be presented, and the cladograms are easier to read. Dinoguy2 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nanotyranus

Is Nanotyranus confirmed to be a young t-rex?

Depends on who you talk to, but it's looking better. There's a detailed discussion at the Theropod Database; there are apparently some skull and dental differences, but these may fall under age and individual variation. We should get a better idea this year, because books are coming out on a couple of recent tyrannosaur conferences.

(oh, and it's Nanotyrannus, with four "n"s. That'll make it easier to Wikilink. :) ) J. Spencer 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Colbert

Margaret Matthew Colbert died February 24th, aged 95. She was one of the most outstanding paleo-artists of all time, being introduced to the subject by her father William Diller Matthew, and worked together with her husband Edwin Harris Colbert (of Coelophysis and Effigia okeeffeae fame). See the obituary here and Ann Brimacombe Elliot's Charming the Bones (ISBN 9780873386487); might be that somebody would like to do a bio of her. Dysmorodrepanis 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nannotyranus

I am currently doing a collabiration-style project on nannotyranus. Any help will be aprciiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DinoBird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Nanotyrannus (I'm not the OP here, just making a helpful link.) -- Writtenonsand 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Sea Monsters Project!

I am trying to make a Wikiproject about prehistoric ocean animals but how do i do it? DinoBird 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dinobird, I think you may want to go here first: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals. I assume that by using the "Sea Monsters" moniker you're really refering to marine tetrapods or more exclusively reptiles. If that's the case then propose a task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles and I'll join in, as I'm a little tired of seeing these lists peppered with red links:

• List of plesiosaurs
• List of crurotarsans
• List of ichthyosaurs

Why haven't I taken care of it... I'm only one person, with a life to boot ;-P Dracontes 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sea Monsters is Up and Running! DinoBird 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Releted WikiProject

Its About prehistoric ocean Animals its...WikiProject Sea Monsters

Shouldn't the title be "Prehistoric sea creatrues"? The current title alludes to Nessie, Loch ness & the type, while you want the paleontologist type to visit your page. You current title will probably attract conspiracy editors, undoubtedly useless in the type of articles you want created. Just a thought, but well done for being bold & taking the inititive... Spawn Man 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeopteryx

I'm getting itchy feet to nominate Archaeopteryx for FAC. Sure it may be a little bit off FA standard, but I feel the team does much better work under pressure, especially me as I need deadlines sometimes. I'm just waiting on Firs to do something & then I'll nominate - just so you all know. Compy looks like it's going well so Archie shouldn't interfer. Thanks guys, Spawn Man 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Noooooo! Don't nominate yet, please! This one is still so far from FA that it'd get laughed off FA island. It's got 11 red links, a loooong list of species, only 22 references, no DOIs... And that's just the normal stuff we fix before submitting. Archie will be eaten alive if you send it to FAC like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. A bit of motivation never hurt anyone. Besides, I'm not doing anything just yet. 11 red link eh? Let's see what I can do.... Spawn Man 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I've cut down the number of red links by 1 - a link was missing an "a". I'm thinking that maybe the museums are under different names to the ones in the article. Some investigation might be in order... Spawn Man 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Only two red links left. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows why Mayr, Pohl, and Peters indicate in their 2007 paper that most of the neck and the lower jaw of the Thermopolis specimen have not been preserved but the rest of it is well-preserved, while Jaime Headden indicates that only parts of the spine, tail and right foot are absent in the Thermopolis specimen, (and presumably these are the same specimen), feel free to fix the article. I'm at a loss here to explain this inconsistency. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that WDC-CSG-100? If so, Scott Harmann's reconstruction shows that part of the neck and lower jaw, end of the tail and part of the right foot are missing... See. Confirmation of Scott's reconstruction here. ArthurWeasley 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's WDC-CSG-100. I was confused because Jaime Headden's reconstruction is slightly different. But this document, Mayr et al (2007), plus Hartman's skeletal reconstruction, will be a better source for the article anyway. Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Headden's description is not that different. The same parts are missing although not in the same proportions and except it shows that part of the left foot is incomplete instead of the right one (?!) (Btw the skeletals are signed Qilong). ArthurWeasley 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Headden also shows no lower jaw, while Hartman shows part of the lower jaw. Headden shows missing sacral vertebrae and also shows most of the cervical vertebrae are missing, while Hartman shows most of the cervical vertebrae preserved, and apparently no missing sacrals. That is what threw me. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'd be more inclined to follow Hartman's skeletals on this one, since he works at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center and I believe has had first-hand access to the specimen. That also means there is probably more unpublished research/observation present in his skeletals, however. Dinoguy2 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry about unpublished research, Dinoguy. The .pdf I have (courtesy of Spawn Man) is Mayr, Pohl, Hartman, and Peters (2007). The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 149, 97–116. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind if someone from Wikiproject Birds helps? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sabine! We could definitely use some help, and, considering this particular genus, I think it would be a very good idea. Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll get hunting in the library this weekend. I know they have a few good books. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for all the work you've been putting in in my absence. My cat died horribly & I'm not taking it too well, so it's mightily appreciated that you guys have made sense out of that PDF & things. Hopefully I can nominate soon, but I've kinda lost the thrill for life at the moment. It seems like one tragedy after another for me at the moment. At least I have my dino crowd - the closest thing I have to real friends on here... Spawn Man 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I thought I would let everyone know, just in case there was some AfD that I wasn't aware of, that I created a new category: Category:Featured dinosaurs, to allow for an easy navigation of all the dinosaur articles that have made it to featured article status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think self-referential categories should be avoided in article namespace. Such a categorisation system could be incorporated into the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page template, though. Mgiganteus1 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They're all "self referential". It's not like creating a category called "Triceratops", it's a category that's (from the look of the work being done) is going to be expanded. The problem is there is not easy way to even know which ones are featured. Most people don't know about WikiProjects, let alone what specific ones we have, and don't venture into the discussion page to click the WikiProject Dinosaur link. Matter of fact, I've been on Wiki since 2005, and I didn't realize there was a WPD until I noticed the userbox on your page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oryctodromeus

Anyone else see this? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just got the paper. J. Spencer 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to nom

I am literally bubbling to nom Archaeopteryx & as per my comments on the article's talk page, I am now requesting your permission to nominate. There are no other articles on FAC, so this would not disrupt anything & if we work together, the article only has minor things which need to be fixed. The dino team can & has worked under pressure before, so this will be a breeze! Have I ever lead you astray before? Erm, well there was that one time... So...? Spawn Man 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay - Nom'd it now... :) Spawn Man 06:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives 10 and 11 created

Obviously. Archive 10 covers January, and Archive 11 covers February. J. Spencer 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papers on Styracosaurus?

Anyone have any? I've been working with what I have, which is not a lot, and Google searches haven't yielded fantastic results. I can't pay $10.00 per paper, but [tempting voice] I can send a helpful user tickets to JP4 when it comes out...[/tempting voice] Firsfron of Ronchester 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've got a copy of Dodson's The Horned Dinosaurs, it'll get you through the night no problem, but here's where to get Brown and Schlaikjer 1937 (S. parksi). If you come across anything in particular, I'll see if I can get it at the U of M —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J. Spencer (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The AMNH site has a couple other centrosaurine papers as well; they used Monoclonius for everything back in the day. J. Spencer 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated, J. Yeah, I know about the overuse of the name Monoclonius. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

JP4 you say!?! Wow! Just a problem though... how are we going to get the papers on the dinosaur? For one, they're extinct & if they weren't, they're pretty tall & we'd need a ladder to get the papers on top of them... A problem indeed.... Spawn Man 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm on a mission

I think we need more members for the wikiproject, to make things easier on ourselves. So I've decided I'm going on a recruiting campaign. I've got nothing else to do (And I've done it before with this project), so it shouldn't be too hard. I just thought I'd place a few ads here & there & do some other stuff in the appropriate places. We should see a better turn out in a short time & eventually a gross influx of users. Of course that user base will decrease, but if we manage to nab one or two full time dino contributors to the project, then it will be time well spent as we're functioning at about 5-7 people at the moment... Any ideas, leave a message on my talk page. And no, I'm not proclaiming myself supreme project leader (yet... ;)), just thought I'd take control of the PR side of things for a while, if nobody minds... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 07:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More users would be cool. I feel stretched at times, "like butter scraped over too much bread". I've been neglecting some admin duties (more than just the weekly blood sacrifice and midnight candlelight procession through the graveyard) because there just isn't time to do everything. I left some comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Science asking for volunteers, and I think some of the recent activity on the dinosaur pages may be due to those comments. I'm not sure where else we would pick up regular contributors, and with Sheep81 and Ballista gone perhaps indefinitely, and Dinoguy semi-busy in Australia, we're a bit less active than we once were, even with the five or six of us regularly contributing. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be worse; collaborative effort in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi has completely died in the proverbial.....By all means. I had thought of the wikipedia post for announcing fungi or bird collaboration but never quite got round to it...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete support. J. Spencer 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'll probably be slowing down my activity somewhat. I've been at a 1000-1200 clip for the last three months, but I'm anticipating cutting back, maybe to half of that. (yeah, we'll see how well that works out :) ) J. Spencer 22:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Naturally; there was no way you could maintain that pace. I was just awed you were going so quickly for so long. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to do something to avoid repelling new contributors. In mid-January 2007 I edited the Dinosaur article to: correct some serious mistakes in "Distinguishing characteristics"; correct the analysis of the advantages provided by dinos' erect limbs; make the "Extinction section" more balanced without making it longer (it previously mentioned only the Alvarez impact theory, and omitted to mention that a lot of other groups died out at the same time); and improve the balance and readability of some other sections. A few days later an admin reverted my edit because he / she objected to my use of bullet lists. When I pointed out that I had followed the style guide on Wikipedia:Embedded_lists, I was told that nevertheless FAC reviewers would not accept bullet lists (see [1]). So the admin who reverted my edit misunderstood the rules and / or the FAC reviewers ignore the published rules and impose their own preferences. There is no point in my contributing further to any article on paleontology until the discrepancy between the published rules and admin / FAC reviewer practice is resolved, as my contributions might be arbitrarily reverted.Philcha 14:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Round up!

Get excited people, there's a new feature that's going to rock the dino world! For it, I want you guys to provide on this page all the links for the following points:

1) All Dinosaur FAs (IE - Dinosaur)

2) All Dinosaur GAs

3) All good quality Dinosaur related pictures. These include any free use & featured dinosaur pictures that are described acurately & can be used without any problems.

4) Anything else you can think of that would be cool (IE - Formation links, notable paleontologists etc etc...)

This is a big project, & I'd like to work alone apart from this bit here. It's also a bit of a surprise, so if you want to be surprised, then try not to snoop around my contributions & edits. If you do find out what it is, then try to stay calm & quiet, so that the other people can be surpirsed when everything is revealed in a day or two... Thanks guys, Spawn Man 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

4)

A) Museums,monuments etc... Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Dinosaur State Park and Arboretum, Dinosaur National Monument, Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite,

B) Formations... Morrison Formation, Como Bluff, Mount Kirkpatrick, Barun Goyot Formation, Daohugou Beds, Djadochta Formation, Flaming Cliffs, Nemegt Formation, Xiagou Formation, Yixian Formation, Dinosaur Cove, Lightning Ridge, New South Wales, Lyme Regis, Maastricht Formation, Oxford Clay, Solnhofen limestone, Coon Creek Formation, Glen Rose Formation, Hell Creek Formation, Kayenta Formation, Lance Formation, Oldman Formation, Two Medicine Formation, Anacleto Formation, Auca Mahuevo, Bajo de la Carpa Formation, Santana Formation

C) Paleontologists...Mary Anning, William Buckland, Richard Owen, Gideon Mantell, Edward Drinker Cope, Othniel Charles Marsh, Robert T. Bakker, Jack Horner, John Ostrom

Heres a quick list of things that fall into the 4th section Kevmin 08:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite.

1) Albertosaurus, Compsognathus, Dinosaur, Diplodocus, Iguanodon, Psittacosaurus, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and List of dinosaurs

2)Amphicoelias, Ankylosaurus, Heterodontosauridae, Scelidosaurus, and Thescelosaurus J. Spencer 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Speaking of which, when shall we nominate Thesky?)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After Archie, unless it goes on for another week, let's say; at which point, if it's still going, it should be close to resolution. We may be at a breakthrough with that timeline on Archie's talk page, too. :) J. Spencer 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

3) Dinosaur-bird connection is pretty good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the images that originate via Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review have very unrestrictive licenses. But I think you already know this. Debivort 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay everyone, thanks for that quick list. I have a few more requests for the project -

1) Any articles which need serious cleaning up or have any clean up templates on them already (IE - Articles related to dinos that need wikifying, POV reviewing & cleaning up etc etc)

2) Redlinks. (IE - Dino related links that need creating - Please keep this short s we could end up with a huge list if we wanted to...)

3) Could someone please make the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/formations page into an actual article list such as List of dinosaur-bearing Formations or something like it? All you'd need to do is copy what's there to the article.

Thanks everyone for the help so far. Sabine, I only need GA's or FA's - unfortunately any other class can't be accepted... yet anyway. As for images, can everyone pick out some that they think are really good & would make a good picture for representing dinosaurs? Thanks, Spawn Man 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my favorite pictures is ArthurWeasley's Othnielosaurus, which would cover basal ornithopods. J. Spencer 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an incomplete list of some of my favorite images. Feel free to disagree. Image:Nanshiungosaurus dinosaur.png

Image:Othnielosaurus BW.jpg Image:Brachylophosaurus-sketch1.jpg Image:Human-styracosaurus size comparison.png Image:Lagosuchus BW.jpg Image:Wuerhosaurus sketch2.jpg Image:Pangaea physical map.jpg Image:Scelidosaurus2.jpg Image:Jinfengopteryx wiki.jpg Image:Sellosaurus.jpg Image:Sauroposeidon dinosaur.svg Image:Zalmoxes dinosaur.png Image:Udanoceratops skull.svg Image:Aucasaurus dinosaur.png Image:Tsaagan3.jpg Image:Jeholornis BW.jpg Image:Dilophosaurus.jpg Image:Erlikosaurus.jpg Image:Iguanodon skull.JPG Image:Pachycephalosaurus skull.JPG Image:Struthiomimus.JPG Image:Oviraptorinaeprofiles.jpg Image:Dromaeosaurus skull paris.JPG Note that this list is not exhaustive, and there are many other excellent images. These are just some that stuck out in my mind. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check on Commons Dinosaur images cat for some more. Additional ones are also in the different subcategories of Dinosauria on Commons. ArthurWeasley 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at that link reveals a feqw others I think are great: Image:Achelousaurus dinosaur.pngImage:Dinossauros brasileiros.jpgImage:Hesperosaurus1.JPG (Ken Carpenter's), and Image:Ultrasaurio.jpg, though I don't know if Ken Carpenter's image can be used for Spawn Man's purposes. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to forget John Conway's Image:Ornithopods_jconway.jpg and Fred Spindler's Image:Huayangosaurus.jpg and Image:Spinosaurus.jpg. ArthurWeasley 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The list of museums is huge, but here's a handful (most with poor coverage): Field Museum of Natural History, National Museum of Natural History, Humboldt Museum, Museo Carmen Funes, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Natural History Museum, Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, Museum of the Rockies, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. Locations and events: Dry Mesa Quarry, Crystal Palace, Crystal Palace Dinosaurs, Tendaguru (needs a rd from Tendaguru Formation).

The list of paleontologists is very heavily U.S.- and U.K.-centric. Here's some internationalization (and red links). China: Dong Zhiming, Young Chung Chien, Zhao Xijin. Germany: Werner Janensch, Edwin Hennig, Ernst Stromer, Friedrich von Huene, Christian Erich Hermann von Meyer. Australia: Patricia Vickers-Rich. Argentina: José F. Bonaparte, Rodolfo Coria. Canada: Philip J. Currie (needs to be moved from Phil Currie). And on the U.S. front: George Olshevsky, William Parker Foulke, Thomas R. Holtz, Joseph Leidy, Paul Sereno, Gregory S. Paul, Roy Chapman Andrews, Kristina Curry Rogers (needs a rd from Kristina A. Curry Rogers).

Artists: Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins, Charles R. Knight, Rudolph F. Zallinger (needs a rd from Rudolph Zallinger), Zdenek Burian. Art: Gertie the Dinosaur, King Kong (1933 film).

| Pat 10:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's actually a stub at Thomas R. Holtz Jr., but it should be moved to Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. (with the common). The page is also in need of a couple of obvious redirects (most importantly Thomas Holtz). | Pat 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Young Chung Chien is now written as Yang Zhongjian, so I made the redirect. J. Spencer 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taaa Daaaa!!!!! Surprise!!!!!

Don't all rush in, but Portal:Dinosaurs is now open!!!! Yay! That's my big surprise!!! I hope you al like it. i had to get someone to create the skeleton for it (Thanks Kirill Lokshin!), but I added the rest. May I make a few requests in my absense, as I know that you'll all be willing to get in there:

1)That you don't mess up any of the formatting (well duh...) - I have no idea how to fix it lol.

2)The "selected article" & "selected picture" sections mustn't bew touched - They're on a randomisation thingy. plus, I'm only putting out FAs on the "selected article" section too as their leads are complete (you'll see what I mean...) As for the selected picture section, that's open for additions, but could you place any you want added on my talk page & I'll add them.

3)Any other changes can you run them by me first (well major ones anyway...) as I'd like to be the portal's maintainer (if no one objects?).

4)The "to do" section is ready to be filled - Just press the edit button on the section & add any links you think need either expanding, creating or something else in the same format as the rest. Please keep this section short, as there are so many that could be better - I've picked out the worst from the huge bulk Firsfron dumped on my talk page lol.

5)Anything else, pleave a note on my talk page (especially fixes) - Otherwise, sit back & enjoy our new edition to the Dinosaur project!

Thanks a bunch you guys (& girls)! I couldn't have done what I have without you. Regards, Spawn Man 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, don't worry about creating one of those little templates for the portal to stick in articles - I've got it all covered & will do it tomorrow or the next day (Plus it will get my edit count up... ;)) Spawn Man 06:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Totally sweet. Very nicely done! Debivort 08:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks cool - a good way to focus work outside of collaborations. J. Spencer 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, cool! This is for sure another milestone on the dino project. ArthurWeasley 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archie is featured!

Archaeopteryx has officially been featured - And without even a single oppose! Thanks everyone who helped, & even those who didn't (Well not so much...) ;)... Another milestone & another brilliant work of art by WikiProject Dinosaur! Keep going guys, we're doing great so far... Spawn Man 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Woo, good work guys! And very nce job on the portal SM, while I'm posting. Dinoguy2 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Archie's an important fossil, and really deserved it. Now I need to get working on an FAC for Thescie! J. Spencer 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that we still have a separate article on Wellnhoferia, although the Archie article accepts it as a synonym. Someone should harmonize the two when they get some time. (Also, does anyone have the Feather Dragons book, so they can confirm the last details of the timeline?) J. Spencer 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cas has Feathered Dragons and I'll try to synch our Wellnhoferia article with Archaeopteryx. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw, man, I spaced! Elzanowski 2002 is in Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs, not Feathered Dragons. J. Spencer 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if Cas has that one... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thescelosaurus FAC

Okay, I did it, so you all can stop bugging me now. :) Anyway, I think it looks good. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thescelosaurus's the place. J. Spencer 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've supported, of course. Good luck. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor classification problem

There's a typo in Benton's online classification, which is reflected in the dinosaur classification article. It looks like this:

• †Cohort Deinonychosauria
  • †Family Troodontidae
  • †Family Dromaeosauridae
  • Class Aves

The daggers indicate extinct taxa. So either Aves has to be outside of Deinonychosauria, or the dagger before Deinonychosauria doesn't belong there. Could someone with a physical copy of Vertebrate Paleontology verify? In any case, we need to footnote the discrepancy.

| Pat 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a physical copy, but I'm sure it's a case of a misplaced indent. Aves should be sister to Deinonychosauria, not within it. Dinoguy2 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but still needs to be cited. | Pat 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration Guideline Clarification please

I'd like to provide illustrations for some of the articles that currently don't have any. I would like to know what your feelings are about a life restoration based on incomplete material? I am starting with Enigmosaurus. Providing the other features are in keeping with known Therizinosaur material, is this satisfactory for inclusion? Mistyschism 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mistychism and welcome! Life restorations based on incomplete materials are just fine as long as they are on line with the current scientific "best guess" on how the animal would have look like. We sure can need your help as they are still hundreds of dino articles missing a picture. You can submit your artwork on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review page. There is also a sign-up sheet on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List page. Looking forward seeing your Enigmosaurus ArthurWeasley 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help = You

Yes, another task you guys can help me with if you want. Despite my poor treatment at the Thesci FAC, I'm only avoiding dino FACs from now on, not the project. Anyway, there's a new section on the dino portal which you guys can help me fill - DYKs (Thanks for the suggestion Arthur W). What I need is as many main page style DYKs about lesser known dinos as possible. They don't have to be from the main page; just pick a dino & think up a coll fact about it & place it ehre or on my talk page. So for example - DYK "...that dinosaurisususus has the longest dinosaur name?" I'll do the rest. Thanks, Spawn Man 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we just clone the submissions from the achievements page for starters? That'd get you 22 right off the bat. As for others, I have a couple in mind, but I'd like to make sure that the fact is in the article first and properly cited. J. Spencer 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sure. Here are a few:

DYK

...that the chinese ankylosaur 'Tianchisaurus' (initially Jurassosaurus) was named after Steven Spielberg's movie Jurassic Park. The species name nedegoapeferima is formed by the last names of the lead actors of the movie: Neill, Dern, Goldblum, Attenborough, Peck, Ferrero, Richards and Mazzeto.

...that the dinosaur Mei long has the shortest name of all dinosaurs. It means "sleeping dragon" in Chinese because its skeleton has been found in a sleeping position.

...that the theropod Cryolophosaurus is the first dinosaur formally described from the continent of Antarctica (in 1991), but the second to be discovered after the ankylosaur Antarctopelta

...that despite being one of the best known dinosaur, Triceratops has never been found as a complete skeleton.

...that the pachycephalosaur Dracorex hogwartsia has been named after the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry from the Harry Potter novels due to the resemblance of the skull with a head of a dragon. (actually that one is already in the achievements page)

ArthurWeasley 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cryolophosaurus was featured on DYK in 2004, and anyway that fact is incorrect. It was the first dinosaur from Antarctica to be formally described in a scientific paper, not the first to be discovered. The first Antarctic dinosaur is a nodosaurid from James Ross Island, which I don't think has ever been described. A couple more:

... that Bonitasaura is the first sauropod discovered with a keratinous beak?

... that the taxonomy and morphology of the titanosaurs was revolutionized when a nearly complete skeleton of a juvenile Rapetosaurus was discovered on Madagascar?

... that despite being one of the three dinosaurs Richard Owen used to establish the Dinosauria taxon, the original specimen of the ankylosaur Hylaeosaurus is still encased in a limestone block?

| Pat 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they did get around to describing that ankylosaurian (Salgado, Gasparini, 2006, PDF here). It's Antarctopelta oliveroi. First discovered, second named. | Pat 15:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've updated the DYK accordingly but you are right, the dinosaur was already featured in a DYK although for a different reason. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)