Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Monotypic genera

I may have missed a previous discussion of this in the archives, and if so, feel free to slap me with a link. However, I was wondering how we should refer to monotypic genera in the text of the articles. Since the genus is redundant with the species, is it okay to just use the genus? What about a genus where one species is well known and a second one not so much, so that most of the information we have in the article is based on one species? Use the (abbreviated) binomial everywhere the information does not correspond to all species? And what about a species that may have more than one species but the entire article (including the taxobox) is focused on the type species (looking at Albertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus here)? If information about Albertosaurus sarcophagus and Gorgosaurus libratus is kept on separate pages here, should we just use the generic name in the text, or use the binomial just for clarity? Sheep81 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I favor leaving them as generic names, for a couple of reasons. First, for whatever reason, the genus is the basic operational unit in dinosaur paleontology, not the species, unless a genus has more than one species that are notably different (in which case they're probably going to become separate genera). Second, if another species *is* named, then we'd have to go back and change all the binomials in an article back to generic names. J. Spencer 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, almost exactly. It makes sense for monotypic genera, but what about my second two scenarios? Sheep81 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, even under those two scenarios, I think we can go with generic names because of the paleontological bias to genera. I've been editing hadrosaurid articles lately, and I've noticed that species within a genus typically only vary in display equipment; what goes for Gryposaurus incurvimanus goes for G. notabilis and G. latidens as well. I've been switching to binomials when discussing species attributes, but using only genera for everything else. The bottom line is dinosaur species are usually distinguished only by fine details, so are similar enough that using the genus name does not create a misleading impression. There are exceptions, of course; oddballs like "Lambeosaurus" laticaudus, and the poorly-realized taxonomy of Omeisaurus and Mamenchisaurus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Spencer (talk • contribs)
OK, would you mind checking if the changes I made in Albertosaurus make sense? Sheep81 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I just went through it and made a couple of deletions (love the search function in Firefox!), and I think it's consistent; stop me if I've gone too far. J. Spencer 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK obviously I missed some of them! The only change I made was to re-add the species in the environment section. It says that all identifiable Albertosaurus sarcophagus specimens have been found in the Horseshoe Canyon, which is true according to Currie. But there are several cf. Albertosaurus and Albertosaurus sp. from other places which haven't really been examined too closely so I felt it was more accurate to specify sarcophagus instead of the genus Albertosaurus in that one instance. Thanks for going through it though! Sheep81 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, and I was just focused on Albertosaurus, and missed those other binomials you just caught, so it worked out in the end. :) J. Spencer 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect pages for species

Can we make a rule/suggestion that pages should be created for species with a simple redirect to the genus? This is already done for many species (Pantydraco caducus --> Pantydraco) but not others (Stegosaurus armatus). What do you guys think? Sheep81 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I think all species should redirect to their respectve genera articles. Mgiganteus1 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is already in the guidelines: WP:Dinosaurs doesn't do articles on the specific level; there are just too many dubious genera for seperate articles. However, I think we were just redirecting as we went along. If someone can find a good list that includes all dinosaur species, I'll gladly create redirects for them all. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I dunno if such a list exists online, but the index of The Dinosauria II is about as close as you get, at least through 2002 or so. Sheep81 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I stuck a user subpage up at User:Firsfron/dinosaur with all species I could easily find. There's probably quite a few missing, but this should be a good start. I'll try to AWB them next time I'm on a faster connection. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It turns oout, they won't be AWB-able. I hadn't thought about all of the dubious species reassigned to other genera or synonymous with other species. This is going to take actual research! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess for now just concentrate on the valid species, then start on the dubious ones? Sheep81 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates

Come and give your views at the above page on our very own Dino Portal. I've nom'd it on the above page & would appreciate any comments you guys (& girls) could give. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are actual girls here? On topic: will review. I didn't know portals even could become Featured. Learn something new every day. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You're not a girl!!?! Nah, just kidding. I'm infamous for assuming that people are the opposite gender, really really often. In fact, unless there's a giant sign on your user page saying "MALE" or "FEMALE", it's open season really. It's annoying when people take offense to it thoguh (Come on, the guy's name was Cremepuff!). Anyway, thanks for weighing in on the matter Firs - hopefully it will become featured as I have no idea really how to create new boxes & stuff. Anyway, Spawn Man 05:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I may have incorrectly assumed Spawn Man and Dinoguy were male; I know I once incorrectly assumed a user with "Kitty" in his name was female. After that, I've tried to be more careful about username assumptions. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I am actually a goat. Born in 1980. Believe it or not. Sheep81 07:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Palpebral bone

Hello, i have eddited the Ouranosaurus article and need a link to the palpadral bones associated with the ornithischian species of dinosaur. Any more information on this bone structure would be good. Any clue what it might have been for? Enlil Ninlil 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask on the Science help desk & say you'll give a barnstar as a reward - this always works for me & there's always someone out there who can create a stub on anything... Spawn Man 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinosauropteryx controversy

Someone please take care of the part I outcommented. The caveat emptor which the WP author did not note is that the study's authors do not accept a theropod origin of birds and place Archie differently. For the mainstream hypothesis, S. prima has little impact on how and why feathers evolved; it is too late and far too distant and its collagen structures are far too primitive for it to have real bearing on the issue. Archie remains the first feathered theropod, and that's that. Dysmorodrepanis 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless Epidendrosaurus is mid-Jurassic as about half the studies of the age of the Dauhugou suggest. Dinoguy2 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I outcommented it again. It's neither NPOV nor are claims like "This hypothesis puts Sinosauropteryx's claim as first known species[sic] with feather at stake" factually correct. Is everybody on drugs? The question of whether fibres in some semi-advanced compsognathid from some 130 mya are keratin or collagen has but little bearing on the question of feather evolution, as long as asymmetric flight feathers and an airfoil shape are known to have occurred in a certain other critter that lived nearly 15 mya earlier... except when you subscribe to some fringe theory like BCF or BAND, which is precisely what the Proceedings paper's authors do... check out who's the "et al", it'll ring a bell. No matter what one's view is on bird evolution, S. prima isn't even in the Maniraptora! It's precisely the other way around: it would be the presence not the absence of full-fledged feathers in a taxon so far removed from the Avialae that would shake things up a bit. The conclusions of Lingham-Soliar et al. are only of importance if one assumes that Aves are not Maniraptora. Dysmorodrepanis 13:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I added some specimen stuff... seems the guy with the mammals in its stomach is a new taxon. Presently it's "citation needed", but I annotated the ref; it's not on the Web at present so someone might want to keep their eyes peeled and turn it into a citation. Dysmorodrepanis 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that statement is pretty obviously mis-worded... the editor probably meant "first known non-avian dinosaur species with feathers." If Sinosauropteryx does not in fact have feathers, that makes Protarchaeopteryx the first non-avian discovered with true feathers. All your points are correct but are original research. Our job here is to summarize the literature, not offer a critique. If the paper makes a false claim that can be shown to be false by other research, we should mention that, but deciding what does and does not "shake things up" is not our job. If Feduccia et al want to make their findings out to be a bigger deal than they are, fine. But since they are the minority, we give them less space in the article. A perceptive reader can put two and two together from that. Dinoguy2 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Links:

I've been going through some underdeveloped animal body part articles, such as Neck frill, Dewlap, Club (zoology) & now Armour (zoology), and am about to do some more. 1) Any dinosaur related help such as on club or armour would be greatly appreciated, 2) Shoudl I link them to this project (IE, Dino-subbing, dino portal links or talk page templates?), technically they do relate to dinosaurs, but they're not solely or most notably associated with them. Thoguhts? Cheers, Spawn Man 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like Category:Dinosaur anatomy, or possibly Category:Archosaur anatomy, if the former is too specific? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds good, but I'm not sure I know too much about archosaurs... Spawn Man 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Archosaurs were the group which gave rise to the dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Modern crocodiles, extinct crocodilians, and birds are also archosaurs. Since there are a lot of anatomical links between the groups (such as some with palpebral bones, scutes, socketed teeth, antorbital fenestrae, etc) I thought it might be good to combine all the anatomy articles. We can keep them seperate, if you'd prefer. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you set it up (I don't know how to create a cat) & I'll link to it. I think dinosaurs would be better than archosaurs; heck we could do both couldn't we? Cheers, Spawn Man 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you need to know how to make a category if you're ever to become an admin. Click on the red link and type a short sentence or two about the category. Then save it, just like a regular new article. Then add Category:Dinosaur anatomy (or whatever) to the bottom of each article that deals with it. Yes, we could do both; I'm not sure how anyone else feels. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made one cat before, but it seemed different to how I did it then, but I'll give it a go now if that's all it is. You may want to fix/correct any mistakes in the sentence or spruce it up a bit... Spawn Man 08:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I have to go now though - save this for me & I'll get on it soon. Nobody touch it! I'll be back... Cheers, ;) Spawn Man 08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've created the dinosaur anatomy cat - please fix up the opening as it doesn't seem to quite make sense. Grr... If you know of any other dino features for the cat link them here & I haven't made the archosaur cat yet because I don't know which articles to link the cat from - any articles for this subject as well would help. Finally, do cats get deleted? I mean, why do they get deleted if they do & is this one in any threat of being deleted? Cheers, Spawn Man 10:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Found a few more. Cats do get deleted, but usually when they're tiny, or too narrowly focused to be useful. J. Spencer 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOL template

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment on the talk page:
Kinda selfish I guess, but I just don't see what this does for WP:DINO except make us less visible. WP:TOL should rightfully be called a "superproject" rather than WP:DINO (or WP:BIRD, WP:BANKSIA, etc.) be called a "subproject" of WP:TOL, I think. With the amount of effort that a half-dozen writers and another half-dozen artists have put into WP:DINO, we certainly don't see ourselves as a subproject. Certainly dinosaurs are a part of the Tree of Life, but we haven't received a huge amount of help from WP:TOL, to be honest.
Sheep81 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn right Sheepy! Ready the pitch forks - we're rebelling!! ;) Seriously though, couldn't have phrased it better. Those slackers at TOL have ignored us for too long. But no more. Try & make us a subproject will they? You have my full, over-zealous support Sheepy. Cheers, ;) Spawn Man 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One more down

The Theropod Database has gone extinct, and I haven't seen any indication that it's going to be brought back elsewhere. Older versions are present at Internet Archive, though. J. Spencer 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack! I just used it yesterday, for a citation on Spinosaurus. It's pretty bad when all the good dinosaur sites start going extinct. Yours is one of the last good ones left. :( Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Mickey must have graduated or left the staff position recently, and lost the site because it was on a school server. It's too bad he never got the time to flesh it out all the way, too. J. Spencer 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I wish he had also posted some sort of notice ahead of time. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
He's no longer listed in any of the U-Dub directories or anywhere on the Biology Dept. webpage. ???? Sheep81 05:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he graduated. He's gonna have the site up on a new server sometime before August apparently. Dinoguy2 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Congrats Mickey! Sheep81 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he edits here, so he won't see that (though I've seen a lot of other DML folks here, including Headden and Keesey). Firsfron of Ronchester 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's the new link: The Theropod Database. There are only 51 14 pages that link to the old one, so I expect them to be fixed in the next hour. :) J. Spencer 13:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all the article space pages. J. Spencer 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How funny there are people working to update links to my site on Wikipedia so quickly. And thanks for the congrats. I don't edit here generally and will thus never see anything else in this thread unless I look up my website's name on Google again. -Mickey Mortimer

Taxobox screwed up

Someone screwed up the taxobox template. The image caption no longer breaks, so that that the box is as wide as the caption would be if typed out on one line. Hopefully this gets fixed soon... I have no idea how. If anybody adds line break tags to articles, make sure you remove them once the taxobox is fixed. Sheep81 05:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's being discussed at Template_talk:Taxobox#Has_someone_been_mucking_about_with_the_taxobox.3F. I expect the problem to be fixed shortly. Already there have been several complaints. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur identification

Hello, I've recently been uploading some photos from a dinosaur exhibition that took place some years ago here in Denmark, I've been able to remember and identify most of the dinosaurs and uploaded their pictures to the fitting pages, but there are a few specimens I don't remember the identity of, for example this one: http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3249/scan0014yc3.jpg

I believe it's a Gallimimus, but I'm not sure. Anyone know? Funkynusayri 09:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a Gallimimus, but the head and neck aren't preserved very well (or our current Gallimimus skeletal image shows an idealized mold). Do you remember the name of the exhibition? Their site may still be available in the Wayback Machine or something. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very damaged, and the position of the neck is kind of unnatural. I don't remember the exact name of the exhibition, but all the skeletons were borrowed from other places, and I just noticed that some of the skeletons, like the Protoceratops skulls and the Maiasaura skeleton with a nest, seem to be identical to other skeletons from the same pages, the Maiasaura one being from the Wyoming Dinosaur Center (it isn't stated where the Protoceratops skulls are from). Maybe someone who is familiar with the skeletons there could recognise that Gallimimmus-like skeleton... Still, I won't put it up until there's a gallery for Gallimmimus, the shape of the skeleton is too bad.

I found an old website, doesn't help much though. The exhibition was called "Dinosaurer, æg og unger" (Dinosaurs, eggs, and babies), and it was back in 1998. http://www.experimentarium.dk/dk/pressecenter/fact-sheet/beretning98.html Funkynusayri 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but why do we want a picture of a skeleton that's in bad shape? Sheep81 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't, I think I made that clear. However, if a Gallimmimus gallery is set up some time in the future, I'd say more is better than less. The mounted skeleton gives a pretty good idea of the body proportions in spite of its shape. Funkynusayri 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like added galleries are non-ideal for Wikipedia I just learned, never mind. Funkynusayri 06:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

Hey all,

Apparently, our little WikiProject has a very good reputation for accuracy. Read this! Not that I should be surprised, with the caliber of writers here, but it's cool that people are saying this about us/our articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's probably because of all of the great ornithopod articles. J. Spencer 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the good things in life are because of ornithopods. Sheep81 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Pssh. Ornithopods only exist to get eaten by theropods. Ever seen a picture of just Tenontosaurus? ;) Dinoguy2 07:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Our hard work is finally cited! :) Spawn Man 09:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Dinoguy2, I totally second that. Dysmorodrepanis 13:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Next FAC:

I'm not to sure where our next FAC will be coming from, but there are quite a few contenders. I visited Daspletosaurus & proof read it & left my comments on its talk page which will hopefully give the main editor some starting points from an outsider's view (I'm not so hot on my Daspletosaurus trivia). Hopefully it helps a bit...? Cheers, :) Spawn Man 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your proofreading. Some of the changes were good, others I didn't agree with. One was a perfectly kosher misinterpretation, so I cleaned up the unclear text so it couldn't be misinterpreted that way anymore. Thank you! Believe it or not, despite my sometimes impatient sarcasm, I don't just revert your edits on sight. :) Sheep81 05:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Gawd spawny I left a note on the cllab talk page - mebbe I better leave that stuff here from now on..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Cas; Huh? Sheep; The text did seem a bit odd so I asumed it was "dinosaurian teeth" as it said "the teeth" before I edited it. And believe it or not, impatient sarcasm annoys me somewhat. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, once I saw your edit I understood how it could be misinterpreted. I think it's better now though huh? Sheep81 08:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you say so... ;) Just finished polishing up the WP:Dino participants list in alphabetical order. Hopefully did it all right... Anyway, that might be me for the night. See you later. :) Spawn Man 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Paleontology question

I recently visited the dinosaur exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History and wrote down the evolutionary relationship, in a dendrogram, between the maniraptors (I believe) Ornitholestes, Deinonychus, and Archaeopteryx, and also modern birds. Unfortunately, I will not have with me the museum map on which I wrote down this information. Can anyone clarify it for me? Is it

I. Maniraptora
 A. Ornitholestes
 B. Deinonychus
  1. Archaeopteryx
  2. modern birds?

Thanks, anon. (Special:Contributions/201.141.0.37)

Placed this question here from the science desk. Hopefully you can answer it. Regards, Spawn Man 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Answered on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, thanks for the tip Spawn! Dinoguy2 15:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Australia category

Our geographic categories tend to be written all one way ("Asian dinosaurs", "North American dinosaurs") except, for some reason "Dinosaurs of Australia". Anybody think it's worth the effort to change it to "Australian dinosaurs"? Sheep81 07:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, apparently there was a vote about this here that none of us participated in?? Sheep81 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That's weird. They usually notify the relevant wikiproject. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't really care which way it goes, but I think it looks better if they're all in the same format. Should we change all the other cats too? Sheep81 08:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably. Seems like a lot of work. Could be done with WP:AWB or a bot account. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Could CydeBot do it? That's the bot that's always fixing categories that have been deleted or renamed through discussion, after all. J. Spencer 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Cydebot could do it. The problem is that these other categories were never discussed on the CfD page. So a special request would have to be made. I could do it within the week on AWB, or we could make a special request. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We could put in a request; there was sentiment for a global change in the discussion. Which way would be the most efficient? J. Spencer 02:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Contact Cyde on his talk page. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Dinosuars of XXXX is in keeping with Fauna of XXXX, or Dragonflies of XXXX. Enlil Ninlil 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea we even had dragonfly categories. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And just like that, it's done. J. Spencer 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, had it the wrong way round. Sorry guys - all fixed now....(shuffles feet)...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise, Cas. :) You needed to get your editcount up anyway. ;) Although, if that was the case, you should have done the Asian dinosaurs category: there are lots more of them... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha, my watchlist doesn't even fit on the page today! Sheep81 02:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
My watchlist ahve over 1000 articles on it & I don't even use it! I do think that Dinosaurs of XXXX is better though, as it allows to go into a country level. Unless we're doing it the other way round? Thanks, Spawn Man 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of fossil sites

As tthis is, by far, the most active paleontology group on Wikipedia I thought that I would let you know that I spent abut 5 hours today working on the "List of Fossil sites" page. The major part of the effort went to the conversion of the lists to wikitables making the page much more manageable, I think. Let me know if you have any thoughts as to things that I shoulfd change about the layout.-Kevmin 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start, Kevmin. Have you taken a look at List of dinosaur-bearing rock formations? It has a lot of formations not listed in your chart. Also: "most active paleontology group on Wikipedia"? That's scary; typically, there's, like, six of us. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Scary, but sadly true. Sheep81 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I thought we were the only paleontology group on this site? Don't tell me we're going to have to show some wannbe's whats what... Spawn Man 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigantoraptor

This name is so obvious that I figured it had already been used. I'm surprised it was still available! I'm even more surprised it was used for a giant oviraptorid of all things! Then again I thought the same thing about Draconyx a few years ago (the obvious name part, not the giant oviraptorid part). Sheep81 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, boring and possibly innapropriate name for an awesome theropod (Was Eocursor announced too? ;)). When the fourth gigantic mongolian dino-bird is found, I suggest Ridonkulornis :D. Dinoguy2 03:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I always liked Rover... Spawn Man 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ugh! The discovery of one of the earliest and most complete ornithischians is announced, and the same day, someone else announces a big mega-raptor, stealing all the thunder. I wonder if they do this on purpose... Firsfron of Ronchester 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Both this and Eocursor have built-in hooks and would make ideal DYKs. J. Spencer 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you know... that Gigantoraptor stole Eocursor's thunder? ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody likes ornithischians, where as everyone knows raptors are the bestest. It's just a fact really... ;) Spawn Man 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Gaaaah... how anybody can name a non-dromaeosaurid -raptor post JP, I don't know. Oviraptorids are about as un-"raptor"-like as you can get except maybe for ankylosaurs. (And yes, oviraptors are the best, with dromaeosaurs a close second, but that doesn't invalidate my point ;) ).Dinoguy2 12:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

More new dinosaurs... busy day!

It's past my bed time but I figured I'd spread the word on two new dino announcments. Baby diplodocid, and (drumroll please...) yet another species of Psittacosaurus (P. major)!

  • Sereno, P.C., Zhao, X., Brown, L., and Tan, L. (2007). "New psittacosaurid highlights skull enlargement in horned dinosaurs." Acta Paleontologica Polonica, 52(2): 275-284.
  • Schwarz, D., Ikejiri, T., Breithaupt, B.H., Sander, P.M., and Klein, N. (2007). "A nearly complete skeleton of an early juvenile diplodocid (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Lower Morrison Formation (Late Jurassic) of north central Wyoming and its implications for early ontogeny and pneumaticity in sauropods." Historical Biology, 19: 225-253.

Update: Darren Naish's blog on the new stuff today. Dinoguy2 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gig must have had huge eyeballs! Firsfron of Ronchester 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Pretty soon Species of Psittacosaurus is gonna be longer than the main article... Sheep81 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I should probably mention there are at least two more species that need to be described still... :) Sheep81 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus at peer review

Hello all, I've sent Daspletosaurus to peer review here. Some of you have already expressed ideas and concerns to me personally or on the talk page, and I invite any and all of you to bring them up there if I haven't already addressed them! I've also put notices on the WP:TOL and WP:BIRD talk pages to see if I can get more than the average amount of participation in this peer review (ie, zero) before I eventually send it to FAC. So if anyone brings up anything that can improve the article, feel free to fix it if you want. Thanks!! Sheep81 23:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Convert

Anyone seen this little gem? It converts between units and formats them according to the Manual of Style. You can round the conversion however you want, switch between British and English spelling, wikilink the units, etc etc. Neato mosquito! Sheep81 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it doesn't do weight yet, and doesn't support a range of values yet (ie, 7-9m). Also a bug with speeds. So never mind. Sheep81 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)