Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 19

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

The new timeline template

What's our opinion on the new timeline template being added to dinosaur articles at the top of the taxobox? I think it could be useful, but it's rather crowded (and hence hard for someone unfamiliar with the material to tell that it's a timeline: it just has a letter for the Period, with which most people will not be familiar). The other problem is that the dates being added don't match up with what the text says, leading to an inconsistent article (I just fixed Dinosaur so we didn't suddenly have Permian dinosaurs, but already there are others I noticed that are wrong). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a cool idea rendered problematic by being small, and by having to "round" to the nearest epoch: Velociraptor gets represented as Late Cretaceous when it's really Late Campanian (although that's also the fault of the format chosen for the fossil range line, since all you need to do to work the timeline is plug in the numbers for the fossil range). It could work better if there was a Mesozoic-specific version, which would at least be less crowded. J. Spencer 00:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Another problem I noticed is that there may be something wrong with the spacing: even though Tyrannosaurus is correctly listed as ending at 65.5 mya, there's still a noticable gap between the end of the Tyrannosaurus line and the K/T boundary (like someone messed up the K/T boundary date or something). I thought maybe there was something wrong with the template itself, but I don't know how to fix it. I think this template could work, if the bugs can be worked out. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the formatting is messed up across browsers. The line for T. rex shows up in the Paleogene for me! I also think it's a little bulky--if we/they decide to keep it (see also conversations on WP:TOL and Taxobox usage), it should probably be moved below the image rather than be part of the header. Dinoguy2 07:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size:

Can someone check out the bottom of the WP:DABS list? There's a bunch of huge images there and I tried to find how they were transcluded onto the page, but I couldn't. Can someone else fix the problem? Cheers, Spawn Man 07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened is two things; I added the images to the dinosaur trace fossil category not realizing that they would be added to the list, and at the same time Android Mouse decided to leave Wikipedia (in the process shutting off DinoSizedBot and other bots). I just deleted them from the transcluded page's source. J. Spencer 13:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Are we going to get the bot back? Sheep81 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If AM comes back, we'd get that one back. I've been in discussion with Betacommand regarding a new bot. J. Spencer 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See here for a new incarnation in progress. J. Spencer 13:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we got the last quirks tweaked out, so should we go live? J. Spencer 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Way cool! Live sounds good to me. Thanks for taking care of the problem, J. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pandinosauria?

Ok... so how in the hell did a seemingly made-up "clade" (or is it superorder?) make it to the main page? The authority is listed as Pau Bosch. This name only turns up a footballer in Google. Pau Bosch + Pandinosauria turns up the wiki article only. I smell a rat. Dinoguy2 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The term, such as it is, appears to stem from a Ken Kinman posting to the Dinosaur Mailing List in 2000. He wasn't using it seriously, though, just as an example of a term that could be chosen, and later decided elsewhere that Avedinosauria would be better (can be found on Google as a cache; the real page doesn't load). Be that as it may, the name *may* have been published in some obscure journal somewhere, that no English-speaking paleontologists know of (analogous to the dinosaurs of Pakistan); if not, I suspect someone will publish such a name in the future. It certainly hasn't been used seriously by anyone I've heard of. We didn't catch it because it was added to Category:Archosaurs, which I know I don't monitor. The article was clearly written by someone for whom English is a second language (note the idioms); Pau Bosch i Crespo appears to be a translator. J. Spencer 15:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This threw me at first, because alot of the PhyloCode people, notably Mike Keesey, have proposed using the "pan" prefix to denote the entire branch lineage of a crown clade. So "Panaves" would include a crown group of birds plus everything right down to the split with "Pancrocodilia" (i.e. Crurotarsi). "Pandinosauria" doesn't mkae sense in this manner, as Dinosauria is not a crown group. In cladistics, Pandinosauria would be a synonym of Dinosauria. The author appeared to be confusing the phylo and Linnean systems, and whoever coined this thought that Dinosauria had to be re-named because it now includes birds... I guess there could be some utility in giving different names to para- and mono- phyletic taxa in a Linnean or Evolutionary classification. But the DYK called it a clade. Dinoguy2 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To the non-cladist like me, it looks like everything in cladistics/systematics/tree-classification-study that is not ranked is a "clade". Circeus 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Not necisarily. A clade needs to come with a definition based on relationships (i.e., anything closer to species x than species y is member of clade z). In cladistics (aka phylogenetic nomenclature), everything except for species are clades, and clades never get a rank. Ranks are not used at all in this system. In traditional taxonomy, which goes by ranks, paraphyly is allowed. Dinosaurs can get the rank superorder, and birds the rank class, even though the former evolved from the latter. So, in the traditional system, where paraphyly is allowed, there's no need to re-name Dinosauria to Pandinosauria. What you'd do instead to accomplish the same thing would be change the ranks: Make Dinosauria a class and birds a superorder, or something. In Heresies, for example, Bakker made Dinosauria a class and Aves a subclass. In cladistics, where everything is based on definitions, you'd need to publish a definition for Pandinosauria. Its article appeard to use the exact same placement as regular Dinosauria, so I'm assuming it has the same definition. Since Dinosauria was named first and is much more well known, it would take priority (though the body governing that, PhyloCode, has not gone into effect yet, and it remains to be seen if anyone will actually follow it when it does). So under both systems, Pandinosauria is a useless clade/taxon, just a renaming for renaming's sake that nobody uses, if anyone ever really even proposed it in the first place. Dinoguy2 04:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, "Pandinosauria" does not have widespread usage. 7 Ghits on Google, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. Until this gets wider usage (if it ever does), there's no need for this article. At some point, the proposal could be mentioned in Dinosaur, but I don't think it's even necessary until someone has the paper (or a translation). I feel that whole article was giving undue weight to the proposal (even though it did mention it was only a proposal). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like 3 of the 7 hits refer to the same comment to a blog story. Two others also point to the same post. So that's really just 4 unique uses of the term on Google, all on message boards. My bet is that the Ken Kinman post on the DML was first, and a few other people picked up on the name...
It would be cool to find an actual cite for Pandinosauria, so it could at least be mentioned somewhere (maybe bird origins, if not Dinosaur). I get a few hits for Pau Bosch on Google scholar but can't read them. Nothing on "Pau Bosch" plus pandinosauria, dinosauria, etc. Dinoguy2 06:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the author of the Pandinosauria page has copies of the references, and could scan them or something? Granted, I know they're not in English, but there's bound to be someone we can find who can translate (maybe on DinoForum?). J. Spencer 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Katie featured:

Well done guys on getting K-T featured. Spawn Man 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Spawnie. :) OM did nearly all the work. Sickening amounts, actually. He deserves some sort of dino-award... Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, you now where they are. :) It's kinda weird, I feel like a stranger on this talk page - I've been working on other stuff and have started up a collaboration with Cas. we're currently rewriting Vampire. Muauahaha. Anyway, updated the portal for the new addition. Cheers guys, Spawn Man 05:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a full T. rex skeleton for my office. That will keep the employees in line. Hehehehehehehe. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Status of WP dino collaboration

Well, we now have Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Lambeosaurus, Herrerasaurus and Plateosaurus as the next group of dinos with a substantial amount of input. I've delayed the choosing of the next collab till October 1st just to give folks a bit of time to catch up and there's quite a few other things going on..I notice OM's getting stuck inta Permian–Triassic extinction event which'd be a really cool FA too. Anyone have any input here? Shall I blank the collab nominations now? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

....hmmm...Allosaurus is shaping up nicely, but as a bigger article will probably require alot of finicky stuff before nomination...Lambeosaurus was very nearly there before and Acrocanthosaurus looked really good....who would like whom to do what? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well things have improved a lot with some of the articles since last time I checked - I'd put them at this time around Acrocanthosaurus, then Lambie which still needs some minor expansion, but is overall pretty good, then Herrer although it needs a lot more work, then the other two are waaay off. So I think Acrocanth the Lambie should be our next FA noms. Great work team. :) Spawn Man 06:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Cas, have you managed to look at the complaints on Andre Kertesz?
Acro (since realistically it's a figure or two away), then Lambe (revised size diagram, some more intro, plus etymologies if someone's woke up ambitious). Al is a work in progress; it'll probably be Iguanodon-class as far as size upon "completion". I'm not looking forward to working on Herrer or Spino (especially Spino) again soon. For non-genera entries, perhaps Physiology of dinosaurs could be a target? The nature of the article, with many subsections, means that no one has to have the entire literature to make a significant contribution. Ambitious targets, I think, have been a problem for collaborations (Platy, Al). I spent a couple of weeks putting off Al just because I wasn't sure of where to start. Perhaps more modest but still meaty subjects could be in play, like Torvosaurus or Kentrosaurus or cleaning up suprageneric taxa, either of which could be done in a biweekly format. Or, maybe alternating, doing big names for a couple of months, then some B-listers that lean more toward GA than FA? I think people get overwhelmed with the thought of trying to push the big guys up the mountain, or are more apt to think "Well, X has got the citations, so X will do it" or "Y has got a good start and seems to know what's going on, so I'll let Y do it". J. Spencer 13:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
and redlinks; Acro has 6 redlinks (2 people, 2 formations, 2 institutions). Also, Sheep should get first crack for nominating. J. Spencer 00:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Not that I have to be here for an Acro-nom if there is one, but just FYI on Monday I'm leaving for my first dig since 2003 (!) and won't be back til October 4th or later depending what we find. Sheep81 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sheepy if you nominate it I'll be watching to try and deal with criticisms, as I am sure will some other folks so if you feel comfortable to fire away before you go that's cool. If you wanna leave it till you get back that's fine too. (FAC looks kinda empty without a dino nom going through...) - will work on th redlinks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole complexity of this I find fascinating - I am amazed how sometimes you can put together an article and it just comes out all pear-shaped and doesn't gell properly - I had these misgivings the first time I put Stegosaurus for FAC (which failed)..and Spinosaurus which should be a monster article likewise seems to come out a bit funny, Herrerasaurus is a bit more meagre with info yet still is a bit wonky...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm winding down Allosaurus, just about ready to get into the paleobiology section. Once that and the lead and ever-popular pop-culture section are addressed, we'll have six articles (Acro, Allo, Herrer, Lambe, Platy, and Spino) in a holding pattern. I'd really appreciate someone to just proofread any of them, and to offer concrete suggestions for improving Spinosaurus (which nobody seems to like). Acro obviously has the redlinks, Lambe has things like another scale image and proofreading, Herrer needs a couple of citations and some building up here and there, Platy again needs a review, and Allo needs to be finished and then read by someone who has the three important qualifications of reasonable command of the English language, having some idea of what an Allosaurus is, and not being me. I just don't know what Spino needs; in the end, there's only so much to say about something based on a single specimen, destroyed in the 1940s, that lacked limbs and an upper jaw as it was, and has since only been represented by snout and lower jaw finds. J. Spencer 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and somebody has to watch the commentary of The Valley of Gwangi. J. Spencer 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Acrocanthosaurus is probably the best and closest at this point, followed by Lambeosaurus (Allosaurus needs buffing and polishing), so I'll have a look at the redlinks over the next few days. The formations should be easy enough, and Langston at least has had a long, interesting, and varied career. J. Spencer 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Paralititan, autochthonous skeleton?

From Paralititan: "The autochthonous, scavenged skeleton was preserved ..." -- This is a quote from the original source http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5522/1704 .
What is "autochthonous" supposed to mean in this context? -- 201.19.93.178 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the authors are interpreting the skeleton and where it was buried to mean that the skeleton wasn't brought from a great distance away. They think the animal died and was buried in that environment. J. Spencer 03:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

missing Citations in List of Dinosaurs

List of Dinosaurs says "Uncited genera names can be attributed to Olshevsky, 2006". But citations have not been added with every new genus added in the intervening period (I was guilty of this omission for Mahakala, but there are other instances. It looks like there's a need for a cleanup. Lavateraguy 09:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Lavateraguy. Which dinosaurs are missing citations? It's hard to tell. Olshevsky lists 1,152 names; we list 1,185 names. There are citations for 53 names. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, it looks like Olshevsky has included Mahakala, so the citation may be superfluous. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - my error (in diagnosis). The reference was to Olshevsky, 2006 - I didn't realise that that source was being updated, so I assumed that genera added subsequently needed citations. It seems to me that you need to modify the citation - Olshevsky, 200n onwards, and date of access. Lavateraguy 11:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Velociraptor feather in the news

Anons have been updating Velociraptor with news report about feathers findings. Since it's a FA, you might want to keep an eye on it. Circeus 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist cites a Science doi: doi:10.1126/science.1145076. That doi is currently not accessible, most likely because Friday's issue is not available online yet. Circeus 20:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's available now; I just downloaded the pdf. J. Spencer 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Pachycephalosaurus implies that Tylosteus is a separate genus, yet the latter redirects to the former. How come? Circeus 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, Circeus. According to J, [1] "An old skull fragment, named Tylosteus ornatus (Leidy, 1872), is usually suppressed in favor of Pachycephalosaurus, but recent study has suggested that it just might be its own thing." I didn't look it up on the Paleobiology Database, but I'm sure it would give details there. As it stands now, this looks a bit inconsistent. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That was written in 2006, in the wake of Dracorex and yet another complete overhaul of pachycephalosaurs, wherein Robert Sullivan noted that Tylosteus looked a lot more like Dracorex and the Triebold pachie than it did Pachycephalosaurus. I'd support it being removed for the moment, until a little more clarity appears (and I say this because there are a couple of very interesting abstracts for the coming SVP meeting that postulate Dracorex and Stygimoloch as growth stages of Pachycephalosaurus, including one by Sullivan, so I assume he's pretty convinced since it would sink a genus he helped to describe). J. Spencer 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

The page was getting really long, so I made Archive #15, Archive #16, Archive #17, and Archive #18. J. Spencer 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Typographical errors and "slips of the pen"

Over on the Allosaurus talk page, Firs and I have been discussing how to handle species typos (Allosaurus fragilis becoming Allosaurus fragillis, for example) and slips of the pen (Greg Paul using A. maximus at one point when he intended A. amplexus, for example). Should we be incorporating either of these two types of errors into articles, and if so, should they be treated as if described (in italics) or undescribed (in quotes)? J. Spencer 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? I've got one more section I'd like to look at (brain/senses, which depending on what I find may be not included), and I'd like to wrap this thing up. J. Spencer 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, been busy and away. I'd be inclined to correct mistakes and not to record typos verbatim if it's a really obvious one. Recording one-off funny spellings etc. probably just adds to confusion anyway. I'm figuring its gonna end up quite a long article anyway so succinctness is paramount in this case. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "gonna end up"? :) It's pretty much finished as far as adding things, as far as I'm concerned, for the moment. Yes, that's right, I present to the public Allosaurus, Marsh's Morrison Mauler, the Cleveland-Lloyd Killer, the Hatchet, Big Al, Allo-bleeping-saurus, Old...Bitey. J. Spencer 04:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks great! Well done, J. :) However, it is now longer than Dinosaur. There's something weird about that. It just feels wrong... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If you merge back all of the articles split out over time, it'll beat it, no sweat. :) Seriously, I've noticed that once you get to a certain level in the hierarchy, you can't write much without having to be constantly qualifying your statements, in which case the statements may instead belong at a finer level. J. Spencer 04:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(Also, a not-insubstantial chunk of Al is devoted to over 100 formatted references. Allosaurus is actually 2 fewer pages to print than Dinosaur.) J. Spencer 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Giant Monsters

Giant Monsters (via WP:PROD on 2007-10-06) Kept

Giant Monsters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters (2007-10-11 –)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an actual Giant Monsters, but the show was about giant animals from all times and locations, not just dinosaurs. The episode titles are not found on the Internet, except here. What the author has described is a dinosaur series, and I'm not sure if it exists. J. Spencer 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WOW

T. rex had THREE fingers?? http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007AM/finalprogram/abstract_132345.htm Sheep81 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well blow me down...it's nowhere near April 1st in the Northern hemisphere anywhere is it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh. I know rexy had 3 metacarpals due to Peck's Rex, but that's kind of unexpected. I wonder how/if this will affect phylogeny, or are there other tyrannosaurs with well-preserved hands? The switch from three fingers to two in museum mounts was done after the discovery of two fingers in albertosaurus, but I bet that hand was a bit incomplete too... Dinoguy2 06:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm stunned. And as Dinoguy says, this could affect more than just T. rex. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there goes T.rexes trademark two fingered hand. T.Neo (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

hadrosaur family tree on Main page

Hello experts - the hadrosaur family tree is slotted to appear on the main page. Please check out Template:POTD/2007-10-18 and revise the caption for accuracy, readability etc.. Thanks! Debivort 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, shoot, - one thing I just realized is that Corythosaurini is the tribe that has been used recently, as opposed to Lambeosaurini. Should this be changed? J. Spencer 02:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, 4 days to figure that out. Let me know! Debivort 04:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It (Corythosaurini) has definitely been in the two Evans/Reisz JVP lambeosaurine articles this year. J. Spencer 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Fixed in this version. Debivort 06:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
All the links in the template versions are fixed now, too. J. Spencer 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Debivort! What a wonderful picture! I can't wait to see it on the main page. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus ready to send to FAC?

I'm pretty happy with Lambeosaurus, and if no one has any objections, I'd like to put it up today or tomorrow. J. Spencer 14:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any serious objections; but one question: are we doing that "group vote" thing? It's utter crap if only half the group supports. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I just wanted to draw attention to it in preparation, and so far it's worked like a charm. :) J. Spencer 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Has Circeus been contacted? I'm sure he'd have suggestions for improvement. He's very thorough. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems fine to go, I think. ArthurWeasley 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's ready - Would like to see the Bill Morris link blue though. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC). P.S. Since when did Allosaurus get so big!! Bigger than Dinosaur even!!!
Since it turned out that all paleontologists do an interesting project on Allosaurus at some point. :) Also, I talked to Circeus, and he's starting up Talk:Lambeosaurus/Comments, but it's not finished yet. J. Spencer 04:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The comments page is finished. J. Spencer 03:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Fire away then old sport...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, only the page of comments has been finished; I'm only halfway through the comments... :) J. Spencer 12:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If there's nothing else, I'll set it up tomorrow. J. Spencer 03:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks great. I'd support. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
ditto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lambeosaurus. The one odd thing I'm worrying about is that people will compare it to fellow lambeosaurine Parasaurolophus, which is like comparing siblings; they do different things. Para has the cool crest that everyone speculates on, while Lambey has a complicated taxonomy and growth stages. J. Spencer 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to a certain extent, it's only natural to expect that thoughtful, interested reviewers will compare two articles on similar dinosaurs; I do it myself, just to get a good idea of the comprehensiveness of the Featured Article Candidate. That said, if there's nothing to write about a certain aspect of a dinosaur (either because the feature doesn't exist, or because it's not really covered in the literature), there's nothing you can do: you can't write about something that doesn't exist. All of this, though, depends on people willing to review these articles in the first place. As FAC participation has deteriorated over time, the likelihood of getting good reviews on dinosaur articles decreases. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Type links

Dinoguy2 and I noticed that the various zoological/biological type terminology links have gotten knotted up because of redirects and merges. It looks like dinosaur articles have been using a variety of type (zoology), type (biology), type specimen, and type species for the concepts type species and type specimen (and probably holotype as well in some case). "Type (zooology)", "type (biology)", and "type specimen" are all redirects to Biological type. I'd have uses of "type specimen" point to "biological type" unless the kind of type is known (if it's a holotype, as is probably true for 95%, "holotype" is most accurate), and I think at this point that uses of type species should point to "type species", although "type species" is not a great article and "biological type" partially overlaps; the problem with the latter is you have to hunt to find the relevant information. At any rate, it would be good to standardize this for the future, in case redirects are shifted or the articles change. Thoughts? J. Spencer 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much can actually be written on type species that's distinct from other concepts of type (type genus, for example, which is not so important in cladistic-leaning vert paleo but may be elsewhere). My feeling is we should have one article (I guess Biological type) to cover the lot of them, and link to specific sections where needed (i.e. (Biological type#Type species)). or actual notation in the taxobox, my initial suggestion would simply be to use (type) for type genera and species, unless the situation is more complex (for example, if a neotype has been designated). Dinoguy2 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems workable. I'd been using [[holotype|based on]] a lot in the body of articles as well. J. Spencer 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Anybody? J. Spencer 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been linking to type species for at least a year now (because it's easier to remember than type (zoology), type (biology), etc. If there's consensus to link to one article, I could AWB them all to a standard article, but is it really necessary? If the worry is just that type species isn't a great article, it can be fixed up. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if at some point we should throw together a shortcuts page for creating and editing dinosaur article, with a sample taxobox, typical headings, some of the trickier internal links (like the various "type" links, morphology (disambiguates to morphology (biology)), basal (disambigs to basal (phylogenetics)), back, and neural spine), some elements like reflist, the portal link, and the talk page tag, how to use the clade template, links to common citation templates... not a manual of style, but a standardized toolbox. J. Spencer 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, J. I had a sample template I'd been using, but it was pretty small, and didn't work well for all articles. What I've been doing recently is just cannibalizing parts of other articles for what I wanted, but obviously that won't work well for everyone. Cool idea. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia and WP:Dinosaurs

Veropedia, an effort to create a database of verified, clean, stable Wikipedia articles has recently opened. They have a database of 3,400 articles, among them quite a few articles from WP:Dinosaurs. Among the lucky articles selected are Dinosaur and List of dinosaurs, along with Abelisaurus, Abrictosaurus, Albertosaurus, Azendohsaurus, Barsboldia, Charonosaurus, Chebsaurus, Clasmodosaurus, Daanosaurus, Dacentrurus, Daspletosaurus, Deinonychus, Diplodocus, Dryptosaurus, Dubreuillosaurus, Edmontonia, Edmontosaurus, Eocursor, Euhelopus, Fulgurotherium, Hypacrosaurus, Jinfengopteryx, Kakuru, Leptoceratops, Lophostropheus, Magnosaurus, Majungasaurus, Mei, Minmi, Nanosaurus, Nanotyrannus, Nanshiungosaurus, Ornitholestes, Oryctodromeus, Pantydraco, Parasaurolophus, Pentaceratops, Phyllodon, Psittacosaurus, Quilmesaurus, Rinchenia, Saurolophus, Stegosaurus, Styracosaurus, Supersaurus, Suuwassea, Thescelosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Urbacodon, Velociraptor, Zalmoxes, and (a rather strange choice) the nomen nudum "Unicerosaurus". Many of the articles selected are Featured or Good articles, but notably absent are FAs Triceratops and Archaeopteryx and GA Ankylosaurus (among others). The chosen dinosaur articles represent over 1.5% of all content on Veropedia (meaning there is a disproportionately large amount of dinosaur content on it; more dinosaur content was chosen than on most topics). I'm not certain what the selection process entailed, (some short stubs like Azendohsaurus were selected, but some long, heavily-cited articles didn't make the cut). Despite this, it's nice to see so many articles recognized as "the best of Wikipedia's content". Congrats to all for this coup! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a couple of others that would be good choices (Iguanodon), but it looks like a nice spread geographically, phylogenetically, alphabetically, and temporally, with a few out of the blue for variety (Magnosaurus, Suuwassea). I'd guess that "Unicerosaurus" made it because it's well-referenced and an interesting story. I wonder if this is why editors have been paying close attention to the fair-use images on certain high-profile articles. Archie just made it, by the way. J. Spencer 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear Archaeopteryx made it! I'd like to see some prosauropods on the list (I don't recognize any prosauropod names offhand up above), but otherwise, you're right: it looks pretty balanced. Of course, with all of the changes in Sauropodomorpha in the last few years, it's messy. Who really wants to tackle that mess on WP? I'm absolutely certain the FU image wrangling is Veropedia-related; both Danny and Nishkid are involved in the project. As far as "Unicerosaurus" goes, I'm quite proud of what the article has become (because the history was so obscure: literally a footnote, and most editors wouldn't bother with it, but it proves it's possible to build even nomina nuda up to decent-sized articles) but I never thought it was a candidate for "some of the best work of Wikipedia". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Good deal! However, this sort of points out one major advantage of Wikipedia over something like Veropedia (or a book): the versions they have on there of Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and Jinfengopteryx (only ones I thought to check, maybe more) are already out of date and missing info on some fairly significant developments over the last few months (no mention of T. rex having 3 fingers, feathers for Velociraptor, troodontid Jinfengopteryx making it to print and therefore Wiki after over a year of consensus off the books). Dinoguy2 04:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: I asked them to update Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, and Jinfengopteryx, and they have already done so. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Dunno I think energies could have been better spent than creating a new/separate encyclopedia along the lines of citizendium. A simple semi-protect on all FAs would have been alot less energy-consuming and bolstered WPs status, but I digress....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dinoguy's point about Wikipedia being much more easily updated is a good one, though: the info can simply be added. I do agree, though, that it might be a good idea to semi-protect dinosaur FAs: at the point that an article becomes a FA, what are the chances that a random IP is really going to add additional good content? Judging from our watchlists, the chances appear extremely low. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's so much adding content, but the older FAs could stand to be freshened up, as Sheep did with Albertosaurus and Psittacosaurus. I don't want to hold everything to a standard format, but Tyrannosaurus now has two "Reference" sections, for example. Whether the IPs make improvements is another question; when some articles have been briefly unprotected, there hasn't been improvement. J. Spencer 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
On the prosauropods: I'm not surprised, as our one major blind spot has been sauropodomorphs in general. There's only one sauropodomorph that's a GA or FA (Diplodocus), and there are only a few others that have had a lot of work, mostly famous Morrison sauropods. We could use one or two people who really liked sauropodomorphs. J. Spencer 13:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
...I hinted at Sheepy that Rapetosaurus would make a good chum for Majungasaurus....there are still loads of holes really, what about a pachycephalosaur too...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding sauropodomorph articles: I've asked user:Mark_t_young for assistance or input. He was incredibly helpful on several articles (including Stegosaurus), he's stated an interest in sauropodomorphs, and specifically mentions Massospondylus on his user page. And he's even active today! I also agree that some of our older articles could use a little reworking. A pachycephalosaur GA would be nice. All of them are ideal candidates for expansion. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm flattered my FirstRon's confidence in my ability to look into the sauropodomorph articles. Currently I'm at SVP in Austin but I'll have some down time whilst I'm describing a sauropod skull in Cincinnati for the next 2 weeks. If there is an article in particular that anyone would like some input for I'd be more than happy to help. Whilst I'm in the USA if any WikiDino people are in Ohio for the 2weeks coming I would be willing to discuss any issues that anyone has. Although of course it is time dependent. Mark t young 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your generous offer, Mark. I didn't know that you were travelling right now, and if it would be better for you to wait until after your trips to look into these, that's not a problem: none of this is time-sensitive, so it can be done at our leisure. I sure hope you enjoy your stay in the States. As far as the sauropodomorph articles go, only Diplodocus has seen significant improvement, so any updates or reworking of the material on any sauropodomorph article would be good, but your user page indicates you've a professional interest in Massospondylus, which is sort of ideal anyway: I wanted to work on some of these prosauropod articles, but with all of the reclassifications and debates (on whether "Prosauropoda" is paraphyletic or not; it seems to change with each new publication)... with Anchisaurus now removed from the group, that only seems to leave Massospondylus, Plateosaurus, and Yunnanosaurus (in Plateosauridae), but where do Riojasaurus, Efraasia, etc, fit in? For someone familiar with the debate, but not sure where current consensus lies, and not knowledgeable on who should be the ultimate authority on this (my money was on Benton, but that was last year), I don't even know where to start. So the articles don't get improved. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for the offer, Mark! Massospondylus would certainly be a good choice, since it and Plateosaurus are about the best-known prosauropod-types. J. Spencer 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys Veropedia is interested in constructing its first portal (which will likely be placed in some prominent position on the main page) and someone suggested it be a Dinosaur portal. Firsfron signed up yesterday but if anyone else is interested too, hop into our IRC room where we can set you up with an account. If you're not fully convinced by Veropedia yet check out the FAQ or ask Danny to run through the ideas behind it. – Steel 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Just on a side note the chances of getting agreement to semi-protect 'finished' articles here on WP approach zero.

Does anyone have any good pdfs of prosauropod papers? Possibly "Developmental Plasticity in the Life History of a Prosauropod Dinosaur" or something similar? I'm also looking for "The Prosauropod Dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen From Zimbabwe: Its Biology, Mode of Life and Phylogenetic Significance", or other good sources for prosauropod paleobiology and descriptions. The classification is hopeless, but these other parts can be added. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a copy of the first ref you mentioned. Email me and I'll reply. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 20:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite awesome of you, Arthur. E-mail sent. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Replied... ArthurWeasley 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked and Archie is there now. It seems weird seeing your own work on another site, but it's quite cool. I don't like rip offs though, and it seems kinda lame that they can't just write their own stuff.... Spawn Man 02:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think they were looking at it as more of a clean extention of Wikipedia, with all of the vandalism, bad prose, and uncited paragraphs/citation needed templates removed: clean, good articles for good reading. I've since uploaded a few articles to Veropedia myself (the best ones; a lot of Featured and several Good Articles were missing), and today Majungasaurus is on their front page as a Veropedia Featured Article! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have Erickson et all (2001) "Dinosaurian growth patterns and rapid avian growth rates." Nature 412: 429-433 doi:10.1038/35086558 ? It looks like they have a nice mass estimate for Masso. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur records

Anyone else seen this one? J. Spencer 16:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit worrisome, there are no citations, and this is exactly the set of statements that needs citations. de Bivort 18:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about it. It's partially redundant with Dinosaur size, and overall it's about what you have found in a Guinness Book of Records before they decided to go with picture books; definitely on the trivial end of the spectrum. Is this information of interest and worth keeping? J. Spencer 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The title isn't great; it makes me think of old vinyl records. I think a merge might be good, as most of this is covered at Dinosaur size, and the rest (length of names) is somewhat trivial. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can only be bad news. Trivial and doesn't really fit in with the Manual of Style article. Merge what can be sourced, but I doubt there is much new information in this article which isn't somewhere else. A good concept (IE, a single page for all the dino records), but poorly executed. 0 out of 10. ;) Spawn Man 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC). P.S. Thought I'd stop by and see how my old stomping ground were going. Have you guys slacked off or something without me? ;) I don't see any new shiney stars...?
We've got Lambe up and running; I'd like Acro to be next, but I'm sentimental and if Sheep isn't around to post it, so help me I'm going to spring Allo on the world. J. Spencer 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

copyright misattribution

Hello All,

Do any of you know about the site Barry's Dinosaur Info? It lists Lady of Hats Saltasaurus image as copyrighted by About.com, even though it is a public domain image that was taken from wikicommons. de Bivort 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a case of somebody copying and pasting from a mirror (mirror of a mirror). The whole page is nothing but old WP versions of dinosaur articles. J. Spencer 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, not complete copy/pastes, but usually the lead, an image, and de-formatted taxoboxes, with borrowed content increasing over time (great chunks of Archaeopteryx, Compsognathus, and Saurolophus). It makes me wonder why this person went to the effort when he could have just put in a link to the actual articles and the readers would have gotten the whole thing, with additional images and all the references. J. Spencer 23:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
...Copied and pasted to a web forum. The Baryonyx image has to be seen to be believed. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was wondering if it was worth sending a tsk tsk note.de Bivort 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is; that's a ton of text and many images copied directly from Wikipedia or its mirrors. Futher, considering the number of bots patrolling Wikipedia looking for copyright violations of other sites, we don't want to risk our own pages getting deleted because of someone not familiar with the history of these articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so how do we go about it? Is it something we alert someone legal(?) at Wikimedia about? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't really know. I was actually hoping one of you might know the owner of the site, and we could just send an email. de Bivort 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The page can be listed on Wikipedia talk:GFDL Compliance. We used to have these boilerplate template takedown notices that we could e-mail to web sites, but I don't see where they are now, and it's been over a year since I used one (the last one I used was to a local TV station using a copy of The CW Television Network with no attribution to Wikipedia and a copyright notice indicating copyright to the station/Viacom/CBS). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Aha! Found the boilerplate! Who wants to do the honors? (I ask because we shouldn't all send takedown notices; that would be overkill). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
(takes one step backwards) - I'm happy to leave it to you Firs as I have some off-keyboard stuff to take care of for the next little while and can't guarantee to have a hug amount of time free. If no-one has done it by wednesday I can do it then though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've e-mailed the forum admin ( starryraptor(at)hotmail(dot)com )with this boilerplate. Hopefully, that will take care of it. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kholumolumosaurus

I happened upon the rather incredible name Kholumolumosaurus tonight when searching for information on Massospondylus. This site gives the paper as Gauffre Francis; Battail B (1996). "Phylogeny of the prosauropod dinosaurs and a study of a prosauropod of the upper Triassic Southern Africa". It's a Ph.D thesis. I see no mention of a peer-reviewed paper. It appears in Mark Norell's 2004 Archosaur phylogeny. Is this article-worthy? Firsfron of Ronchester 11:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd hold on to it and not write an article, but I'm biased to holding dissertation names out. We didn't have articles on the four "New Mexico museum names" ("Cryptoraptor", etc.) until they appeared in an actual publication, and I'd view this name as at about that level. The fact that it reappeared in 2004 suggests that maybe it is still being worked on or is being revisited. Actually, I'm kind of curious as to how long it will take for the name to appear elsewhere now that it's been "found". J. Spencer 13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cerapod classification, one last time...?

With Ceratopsia, a major high-level ornithischian taxon up for GA, I reckon we should vote once and for all on whether or not to retain Cerapoda as a suborder, or whether to use the more traditonal suborders (parallel situation: Benton also used Tetanurae as an infraorder, while we've been using traditional theropod infraorders instead and retaining Tetanurae in its original form as an unranked clade. Benton is the only one to have ranked the clades Cerapoda and Tetanurae). I propose the following classification for Ornithischian articles, based mainly on the Paleobiology Database rankings (search for Ornithischia under Classification of groups. Each individual article will give cites for the rank assignments).

  • Order Ornithischia
    • Suborder Thyreophora (or Stegosauria + Ankylosauria)
    • Clade Cerapoda
      • Suborder Ornithopoda
      • Clade Marginocephalia
        • Suborder Pachycephalosauria
        • Suborder Ceratopsia

My reasoning: Ranked taxa are supposed to be a (subjective, granted) measure of diversity. The traditional ranks give suborder status to each major "body plan" of dinosaur. Theropods, Sauropodomorphs, Ornithopods, Ceratopsians, and Thyreophorans (though a strict traditional system would use suborders Stegosauria and Ankylosauria...). Pachycephalosauria might be iffy, since it was originally included in a paraphyletic Ornithopoda. But many sources do list it as a suborder (Paleobiology Database, etc.). PaleoBio also has Suborders Fabrosauria and Hypsilophodontia, but these are strictly paraphyletic and I've never seen them widely used. So, any thoughts? Votes? Dinoguy2 02:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the traditional suborders because of the distinct "body plan" (easy for readers to tell what goes where), but I worry that going back to that system may create a big hole in our "stick mainly to Benton's taxonomy plan" that we had going from early 2006 until now. Sure, we made exceptions as new papers came out. And sure, we didn't rank the Tetanurae. But it was a pretty comprehensive system, and one that we could refer folks to if they started changing stuff around. I worry that if we start making too many exceptions to the ranks that we will end up with an Original Research mess that is inconsistent between articles, as each editor goes with whatever taxonomy s/he prefers. While I have your attention, I'm going to insert a nearly completely unrelated non sequitur about prosauropod classification: Do you think it's reasonable at this point to stick to Benton's 2004 taxonomy with regards to prosauropod classification? He lists two families (Plateosauridae and Massospondylidae) with Thecodontosaurus and Riojasaurus outside those families. I ask because almost no one else is using Massospondylidae, and there doesn't appear to be much in it now, outside of Massospondylus. Our current article on Masso actually lists it as a Plateosaurid in the taxobox. Can we vote on a good, recent, comprehensive source for Prosauropod classification? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I never thought it was a good idea to use Benton when it comes to family-level stuff, since that's the most changable when it comes to new papers and new taxa being discovered... The biggest problem with benton (which seems to lead to the other minor issues I have with it above) is that unlike most people working on dinosaur classification, he uses 'stem group' families. His Titanosauridae appears to be what most people would call Titanosauria, Ornithomimidae = Ornithomimosauria, etc. I don't know the cites for recent comprehensive papers on prosauropods offhand, but I'd stick with those rather than Benton when it comes to families. What would be nice would be somebody working strictly with dinosaurs publishing a good, updated classification that sticks closely to the family content most people use... but the trend at the moment seems to be to pretend taxonomy doesn't exist in favor of using pure cladistic phylogeny. Dinoguy2 01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration production line

I note that things are going fairly smoothly - Lambeosaurus is thoroughly polished and at FAC. I can see Allosaurus going up any day now and passing. When Sheepy wants, I reckon Acrocanthosaurus is a shoo in. We have Herrerasaurus and Ceratopsia as GA nominees, which is a good place for them to get some recognition.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, Plateosaurus and Massospondylus have been or are being significantly improved and well along the production line.

I figured it was about time to see what folks reckoned was worth doing next. Some of us have lots of free time over Xmas, some none, so I set the next date of choosing at December 1. I couldn't be bothered wiping the slate clean as folks can add and subtract votes anyway (don't be scared in subtracting if you've voted and now changed yer mind). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Update-Congrats on lamby all

'nuff said, now for 'Allosaurus....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll probably want to address the two fair-use images first (the Big Al docu and Valley of Gwangi images). J. Spencer 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
OK...good idea. I'm not too familiar with fair-use criteria so will have to brush up on that. On a tangent, I jsut looked at Ceratopsia which just passed GA and was surprised at how good it looked. Shall we make a to-do list to see if anything needs to be brushed up for a tilt at FAC? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at WP:DABS, and we really have plenty of articles which could easily be GAs that just have never been nominated. Possibly as many as a hundred or so. The only thing stopping them from being GAs is the lack of people nominating them for GA: they've got in-line citations, they follow the MOS for the most part, and they're written by intelligent people using reliable sources from peer-reviewed journals. I'm probably going to start nominating a few every week. There's no reason some of these shouldn't be recognized as decent articles, except lack of interest in nominating them. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, good idea. May do a few as well...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be cool, Cas. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus

I think Allo is just about ready to stand; I took out the species section to Species of Allosaurus, which at 26 k is a top-30 article by size all by itself, and reduces Al to a much more manageable 69 k (much as I liked it, it was taking forever to load). The last major thing I'd like is commentary on the map at Image Review. J. Spencer 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur popular page

Wikipedia's article on Dinosaurs continues to be an extremely popular page, with stats indicating it receives 175,200 views per day (that's almost 64,000,000 page views per year!) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! More popular than Al Gore and Alaska. Just need to pass Virus and the English language and I'll be happy. ;) Dinoguy2 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh. If only we were more popular than the List_of_recurring_characters_from_The_Simpsons. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It ranks below just about every sex article, including several pornographic actresses. Of course, maybe I'm editing the wrong articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Acrocanthosaurus to FAC?

Any objections? State them now or forever hold your peace... or state them on the FAC page if you don't read this in time. :) Sheep81 06:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sheep. :) Lots has changed since you've been gone. We got ourselves a Veropedia, and everyone's invited. Lambey got featured, Herrera and Ceratopsia became GAs, and momma says we have a new daddy now. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well lookie here. Have at it everyone! Sheep81 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the reviewers suggested removing the parenthetical definitions in the forelimb function section. I agree it is a little tedious but I think we have used the parentheses in other articles. Anyone have any opinions? Leave them? Take them out and make the reader follow the links? Thanks! Sheep81 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm opposed to them when they break up the flow of a sentence: usually when they become excessive, but I like to keep them in if they can help explain to the reader what the term means without the reader having to click on the wikilink, and without making it so that the reader has to reread the sentence to remember what was originally said.
For example:
Good: This dinosaur had a radius (forearm bone) which was longer than the dinosaur's tibia (shin bone).
Bad: The antorbital fenestra (an opening in the skull, in front of the eye sockets which first appeared in archosaurs during the Triassic Period) was larger than other temporal fenestrae (anatomical features of the amniote skull characterised by bilaterally symmetrical holes in the temporal bone), and was longer than the tibia (shin bone) but shorter than the radius (forearm bone).
Firsfron of Ronchester 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Acro has joined the pantheon. I'd like to do Allosaurus next, but I'd prefer to get Dinosaur cleaned up first. J. Spencer (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Allosauroidea has a cite error

From the References section of Allosauroidea: "1. ^ Cite error 8; No text given." I'm not competent to fix this myself. -- 201.19.125.166 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it (no ref was actually present). J. Spencer 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dinosaurs discovered in Arabic countries

Here's a new one. Arabic countries are apparently those with Arabic as the main language, judging by the dinosaurs added. I'm not sure why this would be notable. J. Spencer 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus was to stick with the seven continental categories (plus India/Madagascar which weren't connected to the other continents during part of the Mesozoic). Additional categories probably aren't helpful for navigation, and will only confuse the reader (or me). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the usefulness of one category based on nothing but a modern language family (something totally unrelated to paleo), let alone a whole set of categories based on other language families that could logically follow this, is pretty questionable. Why not a category for dinosaurs found in English-speaking countries, or countries that use the Euro? Dinoguy2 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. Please weigh in, either way. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see the interest in dinosaurs by country, state, province, or whatever, but I wonder if perhaps central articles might be more useful, like Dinosaurs of Romania instead of Category:Dinosaurs of Romania. Be that as it may, I'd much rather have a "Dinosaurs of Mongolia" category than a nebulous and oddly constrained "Dinosaurs discovered in Arabic countries" category, but then we'd have to have a cutoff so that there aren't numerous country categories with just a couple of dinosaurs each. J. Spencer 05:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't support the category but there has been some very cool stuff discovered in Jordan recently. Hopefully it will get a major publication soon. Sheep81 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like J's suggestion on categories for specific formations, but this already seems to be served by articles at the moment-- Morrison Formation, etc. would ideally list all the flora and fauna known. Dinoguy2 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The creator has put more on the talk page about the boundaries and purpose of the category. It's for members of the League of Arab States, and it is intended to be educational, showing the inhabitants of these nations that there were dinosaurs in their nations. J. Spencer 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bringing articles on famed dinosaur paleontologists to FA status

Hi there folks. I just joined this project a few minutes ago. I'm really no expert with dinosaurs, so I don't see myself really helping out with dinosaur articles, but I can definitely give a hand with paleontologist biographies (I've written a few biographical FAs so far). Given that my resources may be limited, would any project members be interested in working with me on articles like: Othniel Charles Marsh, Edward Drinker Cope (possibly Bone Wars?), Bob Bakker, Ernst Stromer, Roy Chapman Andrews, Barnum Brown, Jack Horner, Henry F. Osborn, etc? I'm quite flexible with the biographies, and I'm only here because I'd like to see some paleontologist FAs next to all those dinosaur FAs listed at WP:DABS. :) Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be amazing of you. I don't really want to spend a lot of my limited time writing about our boring species but I will be able to help you out any other way I can. Information, refs, etc. Sheep81 07:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nishkid is amazing. Marsh/Cope/Bone Wars would be excellent choices, since they're both linked from so many genus articles (ok, Marsh more than Cope :( ), but they'd all be good... I seem to remember a big section on Roy Chapman Andrews in The Horned Dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. Goddammit, stop with all the yanks! what about Gideon Mantell and Richard Owen...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
What about who? Are those Horner's grad students? Sheep81 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Pretty old grad students....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Never heard of Mantell, but Owen...definitely. He coined the word dinosauria after working with Iguanodons. O. C. Marsh was quite a character, so I might start with him. I'll see what books my university library has available. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great "sub-project"! One biography I'd love to see expanded--Baron von Nopcsa. If you think Marsh was quite a character... well, he was never the leader of an Albanian revolutionary movement, was he? ;) Dinoguy2 15:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I just picked up books on Stromer, Owen, Osborn, Marsh, Cope, and Andrews. I think I may start with Owen or Stromer. Unfortunately, I don't have any books on Nopcsa. :( Nishkid64 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nopsca would be really really cool. Also Huxley too. But O.C. Marsh is a great place to start. Tally-ho chaps...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Huxley is another side-project of mine. I need to get to work on that eventually. It would be great if the article could be featured. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got some good info on Gideon Mantell (Iguanadon, ftw) and Cope and Marsh... maybe I'll take a break from video games and get on them. David Fuchs (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Irritator

This article became a FA in the German language edition today. If someone here knows German pretty well, it might be worth attempting a translation for our version. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

aber mein Deutch ist schrecklisch....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporal paradox (paleontology)

User:Kare Kare brought this article to my attention tonight; it looks like a POV fork of origin of birds, with a painful opening "If we imagine that Dromaeosaurids or Troodontids (together called Deinonychosaurs) evolved into Archaeopteryx and then into birds, why do we find such dinosaurs in fossils from after Archaeopteryx and birds evolved?" Dynamite or chisels? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was started as part of the philosophy page Temporal paradox page by User:Jbrougham in July, but was split off from the article by User:Ellissound not long after. And i agree with Firsfron that it's trying to refute other hypotheses (definitely POV), but manages to do so quite poorly and confusingly. For what it's worth i vote Dynamite, as there is very little content of substance or new information to merge. Kare Kare 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Dynamite--discuss in an historical sense at origin of birds, but really, we have evidence of maniraptorans that predate Archie now (whether or not the Daohugou beds are mid jurassic or not, there are mid Jurassic dromie teeth and Lori the LJ troodontid. The point is moot. Dinoguy2 09:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have begun an AfD (proposed deletion) of this article, on the grounds that it is a non-encyclopedic personal essay. The article contains cites, but they do not verify the text. You may comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_12#Temporal_paradox_.28paleontology.29 -- Writtenonsand 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative, Written. I've weighed in. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topic candidates

OK, I know we've been here before but given everyone's feelin' good..Featured Topic ideas....

  • Bone Wars FT = Marsh/Cope/Bone Wars/....? (adding dinos might make this really ambitious...

Other ideas? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Tyrannosaur FT might be doable soon. I think the others you suggested still have a ways to go (not enough GAs or FAs in Dinosaurs of India/Madagascar, none in Paleontologists now) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did say Cope/Marsh/Bone Wars was something I'm interested in, so it's a possibility that I could get those three to FA status in a few months (depends on how I get through the other articles on my to-do list). Nishkid64 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be awesome, Nishkid. I'll see what I can do to help (probably not very much). Firsfron of Ronchester 06:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's always stuff to do...we'll chip in... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

New article

An Evolution of dinosaurs article has appeared. I presume that the project already has articles covering that topic. Lavateraguy 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Evolution of dinosaurs. This article is copied from a section of Dinosaur called "Evolution of dinosaurs". Nishkid64 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the idea, as there is a lot of material that could be written on the topic, and the section in the main article is a quick overview. J. Spencer 03:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed tags on dinosaur articles

These have been building up for a while. I ran AWB to get a full list of them: Auroraceratops, Brachiosaurus, Buitreraptor, Byronosaurus, Camarasaurus, Caudipteryx, Centrosaurinae, Ceratosaurus, Coelophysis, Cryptovolans, Dilophosaurus, Dinosaur renaissance, Drinker, Gilmoreosaurus, Hadrosaurus, Heptasteornis, Indroda Dinosaur and Fossil Park, Irritator, Mamenchisaurus, Maniraptora, Mantellisaurus, Megalosaurus, Neuquenraptor, Notoceratops, Origin of birds, Oviraptor, Pelecanimimus, Physiology of dinosaurs, Polar dinosaurs in Australia, Protoceratops, Riojasaurus, Sauropoda, Sinosauropteryx, Struthiomimus, Stygimoloch, Sue (dinosaur), Torosaurus, Tsintaosaurus.

Many of these tags have been in place for months. If citation can't be found, the material should probably be removed. I figured if we all worked on a few, we could reduce the workload and eliminate fact tags on the articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the tags on Dilophosaurus, although the content was true, I couldn't find a good source off-hand. I guess I'll dig up the refs mentioned in the article and work from there. David Fuchs (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Added some strikes. J. Spencer (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, David and J. I actually got an edit conflict striking out finished ones! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncinate processes. Respiration.

- Thescelosaurus says "Large thin flat bony plates similar to those in Talenkauen have been found next to the ribs' sides.[1] Their function is unknown; they may have played a role in respiration.[2]"

- Talenkauen says "Talenkauen's most distinct feature is a set of smooth, ovoid plates found along the side of the rib cage. ... The only other dinosaur that has similar plates is Thescelosaurus, a hypsilophodont from rocks of a similar age in North America ... The plates may be homologous to uncinate processes, strip-like bony projections found on the ribs of a variety of animals including the tuatara, crocodiles, birds, and some maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs. In birds, uncinate processes help to ventilate the lungs, working with rib cage muscles, so perhaps the plates functioned in the breathing mechanics of Talenkauen."

- Uncinate process says "Uncinate processes of ribs, which can be separate bones or projections from ribs. They are found in birds, some dinosaurs (particularly some coelurosaurian theropods), and sphenodonts (tuataras). An unicate process on a rib overlaps the rib posterior to it, providing bracing to the rib cage. Uncinate processes found in dinosaur fossils were used to relate how some theropods breathed to that of penguins. [3]"

-- This subject is quite interesting to me, but I don't understand at all just how these uncinate processes function in respiration. Can anybody add anything to our material on this subject? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reserving Xenoposeidon

I was wondering if one can still call "dibs" on an article as I've got the paper and the news reports for this one. I'll probably have it finished (or a good draft) by tomorrow so don't worry about the red link being more than 24 hours on the list of dinosaurs. Many thanks in advance for any clarification. Dracontes 18:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone not connected to WP:DINO beat you to the bunch, but you're more than welcome to add your material (which would be a good thing; it's still pretty short, with no peer reviewed sources). Firsfron of Ronchester 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty simple still, if you are going to add a lot of information then I don't think there's any problem with you rewriting it. Sheep81 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when I read a few days back at SV-POW! that the article wasn't up to snuff, I had to expand it. The Sauropod Mafia can be pretty aggressive! J. Spencer (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite an expansion for a single bone! What's next? Ponerosteus? :P Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe that crappy shard was named not once, but THREE TIMES! Sheep81 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, three times too many. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of mammals: very good article

(Post not about dinosaurs, but of possible use to those working on this project.)
IMHO Evolution of mammals is a very well-done article. I would suggest it as a model of the sort of thing that Wikipedia is trying to achieve. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? It's got tons of bulleted lists, there are quite a few uncited paragraphs, and many of the citations come from palaeos.com (an excellent site, but not peer-reviewed). Many of the paragraphs are only one sentence long, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, I am glad to have my "O" in "IMHO" modified. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ghost" papers?

Anyone know anything about Martinez, R.N. (1999). "The first South American record of Massospondylus (Dinosauria: Sauropodomorpha)". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19(3, suppl.):61A ? It's referenced in The Dinosauria, but the paper doesn't seem to exist. JVP has a list of abstracts here (includes one supplement, even), but doesn't list this paper anywhere. Google searches don't turn up much, either. Any ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's referenced in the list of publications at Aragosaurus.com (in Spanish; search for :Massospondylus), where another is mentioned:
Massospondylus (Dinosauria sauropodomorpha) in northwestern Argentina. Autor/es: Martínez, R. N.
Clave: Sistemática Edad: Triásico
Formación: El Tranquilo Lugar: Sudamérica, Argentina
Taxón: Prosauropoda, Massospondylus
Tipo: huesos/dientes
Referencia completa: Martínez, R. N. 1999. Massospondylus (Dinosauria sauropodomorpha) in northwestern Argentina. Abstracts VII International Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems, Buenos Aires, 40.
Any library with a JVP subscription should have the 1999 abstract volume, and the first one should be in there. I don't think SVP was using pdfs in 1999, so there probably isn't a web version floating around. J. Spencer (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarbosaurus mass

I'm working on Tarbosaurus and I was wondering if anyone knew of a good mass estimate published in the primary literature. A lot of papers like Seebacher 2001 don't include it. Christiansen & Farina 2004 list a ridiculously low mass of 1650kg (less than Albertosaurus!) based on a femur which is a good 20% smaller than the largest known. Therrien & Henderson 2007 list a mass of over 4400kg for a specimen of the exact same size. That actually doesn't seem unreasonable but then again I think this paper is crap (they list "Sue" at over 10 tons!!) so I don't trust it either. I've looked through the original Maleev papers and they don't mention mass, but they wouldn't have been that reliable on that count anyway, I don't think. So... any suggestions? Sheep81 (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The only estimate I know of is the Theropod Database, which lists the 12m holotype at ~6t.[2] However, I doubt it's taken from a published estimate as Mortimer has done most of the mass estimates from his own unpublished calculations. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that too. Figured the same thing. Maybe I'll just go with T&H... Sheep81 (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier today on talk:Dinosaur, this paper (Montague, R. (2006) "ESTIMATES OF BODY SIZE AND GEOLOGICAL TIME OF ORIGIN FOR 612 DINOSAUR GENERA (SAURISCHIA, ORNITHISCHIA)" Florida Scientist 69(4):243–257) might be of some use. The abstract says it contains length, weight, and geologic time. Not just on Tarbosaurus, but on 611 other genera as well. Library subscriptions are $55.00 per year; memberships are $15.00 [3] Firsfron of Ronchester 12:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I am glad someone is working on Tarby who can do it justice. Sorry, not too good on chasing obscure articles and nothing comes to mind off-hand. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... from the abstract, it seems that paper is getting its values from DinoData rather than actual specimens? That would make this quarternary literature, if that is even a word, right? Sheep81 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. Sorry, nevermind. I wouldn't want Wikipedia to be accused of being... erm... quinternary literature. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be quaternary (?) data, but still counts as primary lit, I think...? Ironically, a peer-reviewed paper that copies data from DinoData is probably a more valid source than DinoData itself! Which may say more about the peer review process in this particular case than anything else... Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, crazy. *shakes head* Sheep81 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted most of my rewrite a bit early in case anyone wants to go over it. I still need to write the Paleobiology and Paleoecology sections, or someone else could write them I guess (might not be able to get to it for a few days, depending on my schedule tonight and tomorrow. There will probably be in the neighborhood of 6-8 more refs added for those sections and I haven't looked at the external links yet, so some might be added or deleted there. Not sure what to do with the gallery, probably break the pictures up and spread them around the article when it's done, I guess. Sheep81 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as the text grows there is usually space to do this. I often leave a gallery there until I do this to remind myself and so I don't have to go hunting for the piccies later.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Major edits to Tarbosaurus have been completed (I think). Anybody who wants to comb through it is welcome! Let me know if I can improve it somehow. Sheep81 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Chicxulub Crater FAC

Don't think anyone mentioned it, but the Chicxulub Crater article is up for FAC here. Figured some of you might want to look it over considering it marks the end of our WikiProject! I'll be kinda busy for the next few days what with Thanksgiving and all but you foreigners have no excuse! :) Sheep81 (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of FAC, when is Allosaurus going to be going up? It's been sitting there for a while and it's even smaller than Dinosaur now, so I feel everything's good to go... :) Spawn Man (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to wait for Sandy and Raul to deplete the backlog before you nominate. David Fuchs (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it after I've gotten some more work done on Dinosaur and Massospondylus (which I promised to do but haven't done yet). Speaking of which, how about a mini-collaboration: everyone take a section of Dinosaur that lacks in-line citations, and add some refs? That's really the big difference between 2005 FAs and 2007 FAs. J. Spencer (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for working on Massospondylus. I'd be glad to add some refs to Dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't going to nominate Ally - everyone knows it's JS's baby. I can't be bothered working on Dinosaur - my philosophy is not to work on the same article twice. I remember it was directly after Dinosaur was promoted that the citation thing came in bigtime, but at the time I tried to add as many refs as possible (I think I spent over 100 edits converting inline external links to citations). So yeah, can't be blowed to go back over it, but great work so far guys - I see the article's jumped up quite a bit in size recently. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So I've gone and done it. I figured, why not? Allosaurus makes the perfect gift for the man who has everything. Even if he already has one, he could use another.

By the way, congratulations on Chicxulub! J. Spencer (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, J! I'll weigh in with comments when there are a few more comments on the discussion; I don't want to skew things. The article looks great, though. So much better than Britannica's 250-word article! As if 250 words could accurately cover this genus. Also, congrats to David on Chixy. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Massospondylus

I'm planning on nominating this article for GA. If there are further issues, speak now, or forever hold your peace. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The first lead paragraph is too short and needs to merged or expanded. It looks kinda wierd. Other than that, it looks GA quality... Spawn Man (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Spawny. Now that a little bit more has been added, maybe the lead paragraph can be expanded a bit. I'll see what can be done. :) I sure appreciated J, Mark, and Dinoguy (and earlier Cas and Arthur) fixing stuff on the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

At the library

Sheep here, I'm at the UCSD library for about an hour, so if anyone has any special requests of papers they want me to download, let me know quickly! 132.239.112.74 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy... Umm... Kid in a candy store... Lemme think... Firsfron of Ronchester 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Do they have any of these, rare (such as non-Carpenter) papers on Pachycephalosaurs, or stuff on Scipionyx? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't have Paleontologia Africana (does anybody??) but I can copy the SVP abstracts. As far as Skippy, I don't know every paper it's been mentioned in, but I have the original paper at home if you don't have it. (edit) Try to be a little more specific, I don't really have a lot of time to go treasure hunting! 132.239.112.74 23:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to tell those Paleontologia Africana folks that no one's subscribing to their journals. :( OK, sorry. I've got nothing else that I know offhand that I know I will need, and there's...too... much... pressure! ;) Thanks for the offer, Sheep. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
All right well if you think of anything in the next 30 minutes...
Also did you see this? Some free pachy papers in there. 132.239.112.74 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Do you know if UCSD keeps an archive of old papers, like Marsh, Othniel Charles (1870): Notice of some fossil birds from Cretaceous and Tertiary formations of the United States. American Journal of Science, Series 2 49: 205-217? Or do they just subscribe to online journals in pdfs? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It was only founded in the 60s so they don't have much really old stuff. They do have a lot of science journals published since then, and a lot of them are online access too. They don't have that one you mentioned. 132.239.112.74 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think so, but it was worth asking. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dakota (fossil)

Anybody wants to give it a review before it shows up on the front page? Circeus (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks decent, hews closely to what has been given in the press releases (especially the primary releases, not newspaper rewrites); I tweaked a few things. I was expecting such an article to appear, but I didn't know what it would be called. J. Spencer (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a featured picture - animals

As WikiProject Dinosaurs has done some pioneering work in how animal articles should be illustrated, I thought I would alert you to the following:

There is a discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Mesozoic could use some light general cleanup

IMHO Mesozoic could stand some light general cleanup to make sure that everything is clear and says what it should. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


List of fossil sites has redlinks

Anybody looking for something to do? Still a lot of redlinks in List of fossil sites. This is one of those situations where even the stubbiest stub (as long as it's correct and cited, of course) is a huge improvement. Anybody? Bueller? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... lots of Cenozoic formations missing. No one's even made NALMA (North American Land Mammal Age) articles? J. Spencer (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yay! New Zealand has one! :) Spawn Man Review Me! 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New FA?

Hey, should we include this article in our list of featured dinosaur articles or soemthing like that? It's pretty much as directly related as the KT extinction event, which we've included, so shouldn't this be covered by us as well? (IE, Template on its talk page, listed on the dino list by size, achievements page, portal?). What does everyone else think (I'll cover the portal side of things, but I'm not sure which categories it'd fit into, so you guys take care of that)... Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Did any Project members work on it? Sheep81 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dinoguy, Firs, and I all did some adjusting during its FA candidacy. J. Spencer (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well considering that it is the result of the KT event... ;) Spawn Man Review Me! 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it's related, I just would feel reluctant claiming it as an "achievement" if none of us worked on it. Sheep81 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's also not tagged as being part of WP:Dino, at least not yet. I'd feel weird about claiming it retroactively. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Archie was claimed by Wikiproject birds (Even though very little was contributed by them). I'm suggesting this simply for the sake of "claiming", but for completeness. Is it not dinosaur related? It is and therefore it needs to be in places like the dinosaur portal and list of dinosaurs by size. We don't have to put it on our achievements board though. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with Spawny - it is an article germane to the WP dino coverage, just that it didn't get nominated and go through collaboration channels as such. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah! Definitely link it on the portal and list of dinosaur articles. Just didn't want to step on anyone's toes by claiming something as an "achievement" is all... I'm sure you understand. Sheep81 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Spawn Man Review Me! 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Category:

Hey check it out Veropedia's put the dinosaurs category on the main page. JSYK... :) Spawn Man (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great find, Spawn Man! You know, the Veropedians are always very supportive of WP:DINO and are always saying very nice things about us. Not that anyone's saying anything bad about us; it's just nice that the group receives recognition. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus featured (congrats Justin and all...)...now...current status

Big round of applause for Justin and all others who chipped in for a monster Featured Article in Allosaurus...now Pachycephalosaurus is our nominal collaboration, Plateosaurus is sitting there while Tarbosaurus, Gorgosaurus and Herrerasaurus are all promising candidates. The latter two are GA, which is a nice way-point to be if we leave them for a wee while. Getting Alioramus and Tyrannosauridae to GA might be a good thing to do, or prepping up Origin of Birds and there was Petey floating around too and Dinosaur was undergoing some spring (well, summer really) cleaning. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on Tyrannosauridae (soon) and Alioramus (eventually), but for now check out Tyrannosauroidea. I plan on writing a short paleobiology section when I get around to it. Sheep81 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Congrats, J! :) I'm submitting Massospondylus, skull diagram be damned! We may be pretty close to a Featured Topic. I was looking at Category:Tyrannosaurs, and here's (roughly) how I think they stand:
About eight of these could probably make GA with only a little tinkering. Some may be FA-quality. Only 14 require serious work. And then we'd have a FT! I may work on some of these this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Heck, with Tyrannosaurus, Depictions and Specimens, you probably have a small tarting FT right there! Circeus (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it's possible, Circeus? They seemed to indicate we had to get every article in the category up to FA/GA status; can we just do a few? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It all depends where you put the goalposts - could be 3 FTs - one for T. rex, another for Tyrannosauridae, and another for Tyrannosauroidea later on. Remember, WP ain't paper and there can be multiple sections and subsections of godliness good work. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like a skull diagram i'll happy try one...do you want it was a skull (as in bones) or freshed out? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Steve. That's a very generous offer. I was planning on doing one on Monday, showing just the skull itself, with the various fenestrae labled, but if you have time before Monday...? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be do-able, do you have any pdfs that show the the skull? There are a few images online but I'd rather go to a paper for reference. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There's this, but it's based on Attridge et al.'s paper, which showed the animal with a pronounced overbite, now discredited. The mandible needs to come forward a bit. I can give you the 1985 Attridge paper (which I got from Sheep). Otherwise, there's the National Geographic skull. Which would you prefer? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Firs, the national geographic image looks reasonably good. The Attridge paper would be appreciated as well. thanksSteveoc 86 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for doing this on such short notice. I've e-mailed you; e-mail me back so that I know where to send the pdf. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sent, Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
...holy ^*(%%$ -where did you pull Massospondylus from ?! Wow....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
J, UI, and I have been working on it a bit off and on since October 21st. It's not one of those Sheep or J overnight success stories like Tyrannosauroidea or Hypacrosaurus: it's bee a long time in formation... and may need to be completely rewritten when the next paper comes out, proving once and for all that it was a carnivorous, quadrupedal Triassic animal that was most closely related to Plateosaurus... which could not have fed its young, definitely didn't have a bird-like respiratory system, and never lived in southern Africa because it had no thumb claws and had a short neck. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) They seemed to indicate we had to get every article in the category up to FA/GA status; can we just do a few?. Depends on the scope of your topic. With these thee articles, you have a fairly good Tyranosaurus topic. Certainly comparable to what we have for Saffron and less flimsy than the Confederate government of Kentucky FT. Circeus (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let me wrap my head around this for a while. I've been thinking for the past six months or so that we had to get every article in the category at least up to GA status. This changes everything. At least in my head, that is. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I bet if we got Tyrannosauridae and the six major genera up to snuff, that would be enough for a featured topic, even if Deinodon was still a stub. Anyway if SEVEN quality articles is not enough for FTC reviewers, what are we doing messing around with that process anyway? Sheep81 (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) the easiest then would be tyrannosauridae. Gorgy and Tarby aren't too far off FAC and Alioramus would be GA..Tyrannosauridae...depends on how big...aw Sheepy, why'd you get diverted on Tyrannosauroidea now....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae is going to be... well, lots of stuff to write. Sheep81 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote Alioramus, expanding it a bit. There really isn't that much out there on this animal though. I'd welcome any ideas about more stuff to fill the article out. I was thinking about importing some of the skull mechanics section from Tarbosaurus as by all accounts their skulls were very similar, but I'm uncomfortable with that since the paper cited specifically focused on Tarbosaurus, and for me to say it was the same for Alioramus seems like OR. Sheep81 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A brief summary might be ok and highlighting very specifically how it relates to Alioramus. I note it is 11k in size. The shortest FA I know of is 8k..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd avoid OR at all costs: if there's something which pertains to all tyrannosaurids, it could be included, but don't stick in something about Tarbosaurus' skull if it hasn't been published in a reliable source for Alioramus. In my opinion, it isn't necessary (or even desirable) to get every article up to FA. But there is definitely more which can be added to this article: a few different cladograms showing alternate systematics; an image illustrating a notable feature (say a tooth, an image showing all those teeth, a skull, or a nasty theropod claw); expand the external links section. The Paleoecology section doesn't mention what the climate was like when Alioramus was alive. Was it a desert even then? Is a pop culture section desirable? It was apparently in Dinosaur King and Disney's Animal Kingdom theme park. Maybe someone has a photo of the attraction. You could probably add quite a bit more if you incorporated some of the above suggestions. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This probably doesn't affect WP:DINO too much. The proposal seems to cover capitalization in common names. Since dinosaurs are known by their generic and specific names, the only titles I can think of that might change are, eg., Dilong (dinosaur) --> Dilong (Dinosaur). Am I missing something? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like you're right. Sheep81 (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick Image Copyright Question About a Possibly "Derivative" Map

This isn't specifically dinosaur related, but it would definitely help me with a lot of paleontology related editing I would like to do, and may end up useful for some dinosaur articles. The following was posted at the Media Copyright Questions page a while back, but I never ended up getting an answer:

Recently I had been given permission by John Alroy, the creator of the Paleobiology Database to use that site's maps for Wikipedia articles. However, he briefly mentioned that they should be used for non-commercial purposes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires images to be fully in the public domain and available for use commercially or otherwise. So, I decided to make my own maps based on the Paleobiology Database ones.

However, I have not been able to get in touch with Dr. Alroy to get his blessing. So, I've come to you to check and see if what I'm doing could conceivably be seen as a copyright violation. This image shows what I'm talking about. The top image is the original PBDB map, and the bottom is my map, made with public domain materials I found through Wikipedia.

Personally I don't see how it could be a copyright violation, or even a truly derivative work, since no element of the original image has been used, and the information used to make the map is publicly available for whoever would want to look, but I just thought I'd check first. Thank you.

Anyone have any input? I would love to make massive amounts of these maps for otherwise bland articles on obscure prehistoric animals (hopefully including a few dinos ^_^), but I just want to be extra extra sure that I'm not doing something that the Copyright Gods would disapprove of. --Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the copyright rules governing this type of thing, but my first instinct would be that the second image is not infringing on the copyright of the first. The geographical data both maps are based on is public domain, I think, and the second map does not resemble the first stylistically. Is there a common source for the data the second map could cite to make it that much more independent of the first? Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For a lot of them, I have to say that the Paleobiology Database is the only source of the info online. There may be other places for some of the better known organisms, but the PBDB is really one of the very few decent sources for basic information on hyper-obscure taxa that's available on the internet.
For instance, Pucapristis, the animal I used in my example, is an obscure prehistoric saw fish. A quick Yahoo search turns up only 36 results. Only 19 aren't ommitted by the search engine, and about 3 of them are stuff I've added to Wikipedia. 2 or 3 are from the PBDB, and the same for the Sepkoski database. Most of the remainder are either just lists of names or not in English. I only remember seeing one or two actual articles that gave some information about it. Which means, that the addition of the map to the article would "officially" make Wikipedia's article the most thorough treatment of the subject online. It might not mean a whole lot, but I think that's an accomplishment in itself, and a small victory for Wikipedia. :)
Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"but the PBDB is really one of the very few decent sources for basic information on hyper-obscure taxa that's available on the internet."
Well where are they getting this info from? There must be published sources behind these maps... otherwise we'd be better off not using them here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There are published sources, it's just that I don't have any access to them, especially printed copies. And, some are not English (such as the Pucapristis paper). Abyssal leviathin (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If they're in (most) major journals or in Spanish, I can check them for you, at least every once in awhile. Sheep81 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think we need to check them. The PBDB has the necessary information, and the cited references, just without giving out the actual referenced papers themselves. Checking out the referenced publications would just be needlessly complicating things, by adding a pointless (extremely burdensome) extra step. The PBDB is run by scientists, I don't really think we need to second guess the way they used their references. Besides, Dr. Alroy gave me permission to use his own maps non-commercially, so creating my own copyright free versions based on his shouldn't be an infringment on him, right? And we could always cite the references him or his people got their info from, so there shouldn't be anything to worry about with our attribution. As far as I can tell we shouldn't have any problem with Dr. Alroy's copyrights, ethical source attribution or the accuracy of the maps. If anyone can see a problem with what I want to do, though, just give a shout out.
Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Images for Tyrannosaurus

I've posted at Talk:Tyrannosaurus#.22Locomotion.22_and_.22Feeding_strategies.22 a wish-list of images for these 2 sections. The highest priority is a sequence of theropod footprints (Trackway only has a singleton), see discussion on Talk page. Next highest on my personal wish-list would be a tyrannosaur skull that shows the binocular vision features clearly. Help would be greatly appreciated. Philcha (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus footprint from Philmont
Tyrannosaurus footprint from Philmont
I took this picture of a Tyrannosaurus footprint at Philmont. They say that it is the only confirmed known footprint actually from a Tyrannosaurus. Does it help? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice pic. But the reason I was hoping for a line of them was so I could say in the caption e.g. "Paleontologists can estimate speed from stride length". Form that point of view a line of any theropod footprints as more useful than a single Tyrannosaurus print. Thanks anyway. Philcha (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic! An actual image of this print was pretty high on my wish list... while a series of footprints would be nice, there's no direct connection between such an image and Tyrannosaurus. This is more relevant because it's the only known print actually made by the subject of the article. We have to be careful about staying on topic. It's an article about Tyrannosaurus, not theropod trackways or speed in general. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Size of Compsognathus

I've just been informed by a member of Dino Mailing List that the chicken-sized specimen was a juvenile and adults were turkey-sized. Dinosaurs: Size confirms this - not a peer-review article but it's by Don Lessem, a world-class paleontologist, so I've used it as a ref as I found nothing with better provenance in the next 15 minutes. I've corrected Compsognathus and a mention in Tyrannosaurus. Anyone who knows of mentions in other articles please follow up as a matter of urgency - at present Wikipedia risks looking foolish. Please also replace the ref(s) if you find peer-reviewed revisions of Compsognathus size. Philcha (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted most of your edit as it referred to a different genus of compsognathid, Huaxiagnathus. It is mentioned later in the article anyway. As of today, there is only two known fossils of Compsognathus, one from Germany and one from France. The French specimen is larger and turkey-size (I kept this part of your edit) which makes the German one a juvenile, as already mentioned in the article. ArthurWeasley (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it actually a juvenile specimen, or just a smaller adult? Do we know if compsognathids continued to grow throughout their life-span? (My bet is we don't). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Who knows? But the #12 journal article cite says it's a juvenile, so let's stick to the published litterature. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

Just thought I'd congratulate everyone on their hard work over the last month - you've managed to squeeze out 3 FA's and help out in taking the Chicxulub Crater to FA status. I think you all deserve a break over the new year. Merry Christmas everyone! :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Incidentally, you could always try and claim bird, also recently featured, as one of your own too. I mean, if obscure country projects can claim obscure birds that happen to fall in their borders....Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, and since WP:BIRD is a subproject of WP:DINO, we really should get to claim all the other bird FAs as well, huh? :) Sheep81 (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox color

I have discovered something that will save a lot of time with people testing their editing on taxobox color: the taxobox template does color automatically based on kingdom, so "| color=pink" is completely unnecessary and can be deleted from existing taxoboxes. J. Spencer (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to know! Will remove this whenever I see it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, especially as it will override kingdom color and is often used for vandalism. Circeus (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypoxic environments, fossilization

I've recently run across several articles on specimens notable for preservation by a low-oxygen marine environment, for example, Archaeopteryx, Scipionyx.

We currently have a half-dozen or more articles on subjects related to "hypoxic environments": e.g. Hypoxia (environmental), Dead zone (ecology), Anoxic sea water, Oxygen saturation. None that I have found discusses hypoxic environments and fossilization (including fossil).
IMHO, in general, the articles on "hypoxic environments" need to be edited and merged, and for our purposes, we need to have a single article which represents the best target link for any example of "this specimen was exceptionally well-preserved due to its deposition in a hypoxic marine environment" (should link to what??) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)