Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Time to archive this page? If others think so I'm happy to implement it. Debivort

Yeah, it's getting pretty long. I'd archive anything that doesn't have a new post frm at least the last month or so.Dinoguy2 14:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
OK - I've done this. Archived image review is now at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive June 2006 - October 2006. I also made a header template for inclusion on the current review page and archived versions, to keep everything linked together: Template:WikiProjectDinosaursImageReviewHeader. Hope this meets with everyone's satisfaction. Debivort 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] debivort upload hiatus

Hey all - I'm going to be away from my scanner through the 4th of January, so don't think I've left the project if I don't post any new sketches. Happy Holidays! Debivort 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a great vacation! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Graveyeard

In case you guys haven't seen this site, which just came back online, it's an excellent compilation of skeletal reconstrcutions from a variety of artists. [1] Dinoguy2 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! I've bookmarked it. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Very nice indeed. Good to have all these skeletals on one site. :) ArthurWeasley 07:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new image criterion

The addition of this image [2] has pointed out a pretty glaring omission in our current official image guidelines--we should have one to the effect of "Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geogrphic range" under Criterion for removing an image. The image in question was captioned as Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Othnielia rex, two animals which did not live together. Since Todd Marshall is a well-respected paleoartists, I suspect one of the species is mislabelled (it's probably meant to depict Torvosaurus), but I think this would be a good policy to have in writing. Dinoguy2 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; good catch. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Approved images

Are we not using the approved images page any longer? Should we splice those images back into the archives and then delete the whole page? Sheep81 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess everybody have forgotten that such a page ever existed and we kept on simply archiving the Image review page whenever it's getting huge. I would propose to continue doing so (less maintenance required). ArthurWeasley 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I merged all of the discussion from that page up there into the first archive. The whole page could now be deleted or converted to another use if we want! Sheep81 02:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed notice?

I'm thinking we should have some kind of category on Commons, or a tag, to denote images that have gone through review without objection or have been modified until they passed a consesnus. Especially considering a number of good images are not immediately placed into an article, so if somebody's looking through commons in the future, we could easily distinguish which images are good enough to be used in articles, and which are not (maybe a "historical interest" tag as well, for antique reconstructions or reconstructions meant to depict outdated concepts?). This would also help us know when we can move a discussion from this page to the archives. Any thoughts? (I have no idea how to make tags myself, for the record ;) ) Dinoguy2 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that makes sence, I might from now on post work in progress on someting like photobucket to help avoid this. Steveoc 86 11:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a pretty neat idea, and I don't think it's ever been done before, at least not from what I've seen. If we were to tag the Commons images, we would want to do two sets of tags: one for "This image has passed review for accuracy", and possibly one for "This image is not accurate, but has been preserved for historic content", or something like that, for the Public Domain images. Also, if we're tagging Commons images, it would be a good idea to get the involvement or support of the WP:Dino teams in other languages. I believe the Portuguese Wikipedia has a quite active WikiProject Dinosaurs group, and recently one was started on the Chinese Wikipedia as well. We would want their input to tag images that are common between language editions. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how useful this is but maybe a Speculative Caution tag as alot of Dinosaurs arn't very complete, for exarmple ArthurWeasley has done a paralititan and i have done a bruhathkayosaurus, both of which arn't very complete and are mostly gess work. Benosaurus has done a siamosaurus which is only based of teeth. With out more information its difficult to say how correct they are. Steveoc 86 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The easiest way I see is just to create an "en-WPDino approved dinosaur images" category as suggested by DG, and placed it as a subcategory of images category. All the images that have passed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review should then be tagged by the final reviewer. However, they are maybe hundreds of pictures that haven't even been reviewed for accuracy (such as Benosaurus' Siamosaurus), so I don't know how we should proceed with them. I don't think we need to have a speculative caution tag as long as the depiction is on line with the latest scientific best guess and approved by the project. We can just drop a line in the image description saying that the reconstruction is based on incomplete materials and unknown parts are speculated from related genera, or something like that.ArthurWeasley 18:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
i agree it would be nice to keep things simple. Maybe somthing like 'this image has been reivewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review and is and is ether accurate or in line with the latest scientific thinking (see description below for details)......Steveoc 86 19:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, we may want to keep this on the english wikipedia, as many images are not even loaded on Commons. Plus we won't to have to regularly patrol commons to check if somebody is not self-approving a non acceptable dino pic, and there will be no need to coordinate efforts with dino projects in other language (that might be difficult to do because some might not even speak english). I also don't know if wiki commons policies would want such a category to exist. Why don't we just create a page with a gallery of approved images, with may be subpages for inaccurate images kept for historical reasons or to illustrate a past reconstruction. This page would have to be easy to find by being linked to the dino wikiproject page and the dino portal. This would be also much more easy to maintain and we might just want to make sister projects in other languages aware of it. Thoughts anybody? ArthurWeasley 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Since we're not using the approved images page anymore, we could use that as our gallery space. Of course the information currently on the page would need to be moved back into the archives of this page. Sheep81 20:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to create categories for commons images on Wikipedia? I know they have their own description pages with those "see full description on Commons" tags. If not, using a gallery would probably be the best bet, since logistically keeping track of stuff on commons won't be easy. Dinoguy2 06:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just created category:Approved dinosaur images with link in the image review page and on the wikiproject dinosaur page (should be one on the Portal as well, i think). This should be easy to maintain as you just a have to place a category tag on the picture once approved. Might want to create subcategories for images with historical values and those for comparison charts. ArthurWeasley 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for setting it up! Dinoguy2 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
OK boys and girls - I'm going to try to tag as many images as I can. AW pointed out that in addition to images vetted on the Image Review pages, it will be worth adding this tag to other quality images. Since I won't be able to evaluate the latter as well as you experts will, I'll focus on tagging the images linked from the Review pages. So, experts: direct your attentions elsewhere! Debivort 05:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Debivort! That will save them tons of time! Firsfron of Ronchester 05:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright. Here's an issue. Do we include in category:Approved dinosaur images images that were approved on the review pages, but are of non-dinosaurs? Given the current description at the category page, they could be accomodated there, except that it kind of places those non-dino images under the jurisdiction of WP:Dino. Thoughts? Debivort 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking not, seems like that falls outside our jurisdiction. I think we should focus on Dinosauria minus Aves, and let other projects deal with the accuracy of other stuff. It could be a good idea to set up image reviews for things like WP pterosaurs, and WP sea monsters (we've got to do something about that name, how about just marine reptiles in general?), or WP prehistoric birds if such a thing exists... Dinoguy2 06:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with DG. Let's stay focused on Dinosauria otherwise it will become rapidly unmanageable. WP sea monsters is still alive? There isn't much going on there and it seems that the project manager disappeared from wikipedia. I think it was originally intended to deal with all large prehistoric aquatic animals including fish, mammals and giant mollusks, so "marine reptiles" would be too restrictive. ArthurWeasley 15:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I've tagged all the dinos from the review pages I believe. Maybe they should call it WP: Paleo Marine Megafaunal? Debivort 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, Deb. I'd say we have now a really decent list of cool dino pics that the WP should be proud of. Paleo Marine Megafaunal? Nah, too technical. I'd say we ought to have a superproject called "WP:prehistoric animals" under WP:Tree of life and that will contain WP:Dinosaurs, WP:Pterosaurs, and WP:Sea Monsters. The superproject could deal with all topics not covered by any of the subprojects. Personally, I'd like to have people working on articles such as rauisuchia, Dimetrodon or Sarcosuchus and bring them to FA status :). Would be nice if somebody could create wikiprojects such as WP:Prehistoric mammals, WP:Prehistoric birds, or WP:Prehistoric fish.ArthurWeasley 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I had intended, at one point, to work on a ton of prehistoric reptile articles, even joined WP:Pterosaurs, but I ended up only working on WP:DINO because there were already so many articles as it was. I agree that getting an article on one of the more popular non-dinosaur prehistoric reptiles, such as Dimetrodon, up to FA, would be really cool. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DiBgd

Has anyone seen the images created by User:DiBgd? Check out his user contributions. A lot of herps and synapsids, but a few dinosaurs too. Some awesome stuff in there. One of his pictures is in Lambeosaurus. I think it's gorgeous. Sheep81 06:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, these are very well done. Check out image:Carnotaurus_DB.jpg and image:Ceratosaurus_nasicornis_DB.jpg. ArthurWeasley 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! A goldmine of high quality images. Mgiganteus1 06:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Those are awsome, we could always kidnap him! ;) Steveoc 86 08:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, those are pretty freaking amazing! Aside from a few pronated hands, I'd be willing to put most of them in the approval category... do we need an artist's permission to review images...? Dinoguy2 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think you need the artist permission for a review, but she/he would probably appreciate receiving feedbacks. I've just tagged approved the Lambeosaurus pic. Cheers.ArthurWeasley 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I contacted him via email, he says he'll start drawing dinosaurs soon again, and that he was happy about the hand/tail fixing. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] delisting approved images

While browsing the lovely gallery of approved images, I came across [:Image:Sketch plateosaurus.jpg]. It passed image review in the past, but I gather a new study precluded pronated hands in plateosaurs. So, if nominated now, this image probably wouldn't pass. Do we want a delisting procedure to take images out of the approved category, along the lines of WP:FPC? Cheers, Debivort 06:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It would just take one of the regular reviewers (I am thinking of Dinoguy2, Steveoc or Firsfron) to go over the approved images list (from time to time) and remove the tag to those they feel do not meet all the criteria of scientific accuracy anymore. Would be nice to send a note to the artist, too. ArthurWeasley 06:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure i could help out with that. We could give the artist a time period to adjust the picture, if nessary. Steveoc 86 08:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The contentious image is Image:Sketch plateosaurus.jpg. Deb and I have also some different views on Image:Camptosaurus.jpg. An opinion from a third person would be much appreciated. ArthurWeasley 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I see the problem with plateosaurus hands, Ive sent a message to Tbc2 About the hands on his plateosaurus to give him a chance to fix them. I dont know much about Camptosaurus, whats wrong with it? The only thing I'd prefere it if the image was less ambiguous, it head would be better side on, for exarmple. The head is unigue to every species, so it it would be nice to see it, clearly. Steveoc 86 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with this picture anatomically speaking (I actually like it a lot), but as you and Debivort pointed out, you don't see much details of the animal, so it might not be suitable to be used as an encyclopedia illustration. Would this warrant unapproval from the WP:dino team? ArthurWeasley 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
To me the aprroval should be about accuracy or up-to-date..ness, so i think its fine (and its a nice drawing), for me at least it deserves to be approved. However the artical should maybe have another image which shows of the features of the animal better. Steveoc 86 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. There is a room for more than one image in the article. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the guy that made Image:Sketch plateosaurus.jpg. I'm willing to change the position of the hands together with those of Image:Sketch acrocanthosaurus.jpg, but I will only have the time to do this near the end of June, beginning of July. I hope you have the patience to wait until then. Regards, Tbc2 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any real urgency. We can always remove the approved template, and then restore it when you have replaced them. Debivort 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psittacosaurus project

I have a request for our awesome artists to mull over. I was looking at Fredrik Spindler's image in the Species of Psittacosaurus article, and while it's nice, it's copyrighted and fair use, not technically in the public domain. So I was wondering if any of our Project artists would like to try to make a PD replacement to show the variation in this genus. What I'm thinking is a series of pictures of the heads of the different species, as opposed to having them all one one image. Then we can place each image by the appropriate species. A profile shot for each one, or maybe one shot from the side and one from the front? We could also gather all the individual images and paste them onto one image for comparison, if somebody wanted. I know other dinos have no images, and Psittacosaurus has several, but I think it would be cool. Just throwing something out there. I've taken the liberty of uploading a bunch of images so that they can be used as a reference. You can contact me on my talk page for help if you want!

  • P. lujiatunensis - [3]
  • P. major - [4]
  • P. meileyingensis - [5]
  • P. mongoliensis - [6]
  • P. neimongoliensis - [7]
  • P. ordosensis - [8]
  • P. sibiricus - [9]
  • P. sinensis - [10]
  • P. mazongshanensis - I don't have an image to scan :(
  • P. xinjiangensis - no complete skull or published skull reconstruction that I am aware of

Sheep81 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Something like this? ArthurWeasley 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

P. major

[edit] hadrosaur info request

OK all - I guess I am not entirely sick of hadrosaurs. I have an idea to do a "sweeping panorama" style drawing of a herd of hadrosaurs moving across a plain with hills in the background. So, with this in mind, I have some questions:

1) Which species has the most evidence about herd behavior? 2) What type of biome would they live in? 3) Where are dinosaurs' genitals? Do they have cloaca(s)? 4) What were herd sizes? 5) Did herds mix species, as on the Serengheti? 6) If so, what other species would be there?

Guess that's all for now. Debivort 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Off the top of my head, Maiasaura, Brachylophosaurus, and, oddly, Prosaurolophus (quite possibly the most obscure yet well-known dinosaur); a lot of Asian taxa may be in bonebeds, but I don't have the refs handy.
2) Varies; most of the famous Dinosaur Park Fm./Alberta types are in paleochannel environments, but the top of the formation has more of a marine influence. Rivers, mostly.
  • Can you link a page about paleochannel environments?
Just think river here. If you're talking the Maia or Pros bonebeds, you're talking Two Medicine Formation, which is interpreted as an upper coastal plain with a seasonally dry climate, a drier version of the part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain nearer the mountains. Incidentally, there are bentonite layers in the Two Med, meaning volcanic ash, meaning it's perfectly reasonable to have the traditional smoking volcano in the background. If you're talking Brachy, you're in the Judith River Formation, which is wetter and more deltaic (closer to the coast). J. Spencer 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How would that be different from a generic wetland?
It's paleo. :) J. Spencer 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What kind of forests would flank such a paleochannel environment? Conifer woods? Grasslands? Fern/palm forest?
Definitely conifers, as we've got cones, wood, and leaves; Sequoia/Metasequoia are good choices; some deciduous trees are appearing by then (poplar, birch, and oak are in the Judith River, according to Lull and Wright). The Dinosaur Park Formation has ginkgo, ferns, Taxodiaceae, Cupressaceae, Podocarpaceae, horsetail, sycamores, water chestnut, and Vitaceae. J. Spencer 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Are they thought to have spent time significantly submerged in the water?
Depends who you ask. No one that I can think of still has them in the traditional amphibious role, but there's still quiet controversy over how much time they were spending in the water. Mostly terrestrial. J. Spencer 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Elephants spend a lot of time in the water, even swimming in the ocean near Madagascar, but nobody questions their terrestriality. I don't think you can go wrong showing a few maiasaurs splashing across a river. Sheep81 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could the prevalence of finding them in wet areas be a fossilization artifact - i.e. they are more likely to be caught in the right sediments for preservation when they happen to be near water? or does it seem like they genuinely spent more time near water? Debivort 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Million-dollar question. The preservation of articulated skeletons in channel settings certainly suggests that they died in the near vicinity. Most animals like to be close to water, anyway. J. Spencer 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
3) Where do you think they are? :) No particular evidence, but going off of crocs and birds, probably cloacas, with internal sex organs that don't show.
4) Brachy and Pros bonebeds have 4-6 odd individuals, in small areas. I've heard 10s of thousands of Maia, but that may just be an urban legend.
  • Would it be reasonable to do an image suggesting dozens to hundreds of Maiasaurs? Debivort 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. In those numbers, they're probably all going somewhere. J. Spencer 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
5) Unknown; I know that Tsintaosaurus is from a mixed lambeosaurine/hadrosaurine bonebed with Tanius, but Tsintao is problematic and nobody seems to remember that Tanius was ever named. The Amur taxa Amurosaurus and Kerberosaurus are from the same bonebed; unfortunately, Kerberosaurus is poorly known.
6) See above J. Spencer 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
" I've heard 10s of thousands of Maia, but that may just be an urban legend."
!!This must include nestlings...? Dinoguy2 13:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] categorizing composites

So, into which approved categories should the composite diagrams go? They are both scale diagrams and reconstruction-style pictures. Debivort 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dating hadrosaur tree

Hey all - is there any information concerning the dates of branch divergence in the hadrosaur family tree image? Debivort 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Late, but for the record, there are no well-constrained dates at this point. J. Spencer 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I had that instinct for some reason, but it was asked during the FPC discussion. Debivort 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hadrosaur family tree FP

Hey all - the Hadrosaur family tree was promoted to Featured Picture status with unanimous support! Woot woot! A round of applause for all your absolutely essential input on the image. Debivort 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is great... Congrats! We now have three featured dinosaur images (one from LofH on Commons, two on the english wikipedia with the T-rex skeleton photo). Should we push for more? Cheers. ArthurWeasley 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! J. Spencer 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be fun to push for more. I think the composite images have very good chances there as long as we don't post them too often and burn people out on them. Debivort 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] approved categories

Hey all - are the approved categories still active? Haven't notice any new additions there. Debivort 06:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They should be... I think the slow addition of new approval tags is because the process is kind of informal. I think we should agree on some kind of general time frame for comments and suggested alterations to submitted images, maybe a week or so. Then the image can be marked as approved. Of course more suggestions can always be made later if issues come up (like, we're gonna need to alter a whole lot of tyrannosaurid images pretty soon so they have three fingers rather than two). I think any discussions on the review page that have been inactive for a while can be rubber stamped, as long as no suggestions were left unaddressed. Dinoguy2 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klamelisaurus

Is this an accurate reconstruction, off of which a new one can be modeled? It looks pretty ridiculous. Debivort 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not shure how acurate it is, I can hardly find any thing about this animal, but it does look odd, like its trotting along. :) the caption says Bellusaurus is belived ot be a young individual of this genus, if so then maybe this would be useful [11] Steveoc 86 11:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The pose does look a little odd, but nothing out of the ordinary... I've seen a few sauropods with extremely flexed wrists (see Jaime Headen's skeletal of Isisaurus and reconstructions based on it...), but it looks very odd for this type of animal and I'm not sure if they'd actually be able to do that. Some of the odd proportionsm ight also be due to melding adult and juvi parts. Probably best to try and track down original material or better skeletals (the mount photo almost looks equally wonky to me...). Dinoguy2 05:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alert for artists: Ceratopsian skin impressions

Just learned of a poster presented at SVP on a find that will be officially published next year (never too early to incorporate into illustrations and keep them from becoming quickly out of date, hey?). Apparently, they've found a beatifully preserved and articulated Triceratops specimen with extensive skin impressions that I suppose could be incorporated into other ceratopsian species as well. The belly of Triceratops was covered in the familiar long, smooth, rectangular scales seen on the bellies of crocs, squamates, etc. The upper part of the body had typical ornithischian small, pebbly scales interspered with many larger scutes that have distinctive "nipples" in the center! Apparently the authors suggest that these might have formed the base of hollow psittacosaur-like quills. Interesting stuff, just thought I'd throw the heads up if anybody planned on drawing ceratopsians in the future or modifying older drawings. Dinoguy2 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, interesting! Can't wait to see the publication. ArthurWeasley 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't resist to try to figure out what would Triceratops look like with quills. Here is possibility, sort of a giant porcupine. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Freaky stuff! Can't wait to read this paper, if only to see how strong the support for quills really is, or if the authors just mention it as a vague possibility (which nevertheless would be worthy of illustration, like Bakker's sauropod trunks). Dinoguy2 23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Crazy, cool though, would be a massive change basically all reconstructions would be wrong. Steveoc 86 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mounted Skeletons

Skeleton mounts are probably the least accurate form of "paleo-art" out there, because they're so difficult to change or reposition. Should we hold photos of mounts to the same standards as other images? For example, the classic pair of Anatotitan at the AMNH clearly violate what we now know about the way hadrosaur tails flexed or were held in life. Should the photo of that mount be in the taxobox, or relegated to the historical section? Dinoguy2 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume so, would commenting on inaccuray in captions be pushing into origanal resurch? In the case of Anatotitan, maybe the taxobox image should be swaped with Arthurs' drawing as its the most accurate in the artical, (the walking with dinosaur image has a chissled down thumb spike witch shouldn't be there). Steveoc 86 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think if we're careful, we can avoid OR. A caption such as: "Anatotitan, showing old-style reconstruction" would be better than moving the image to a historical section. I'd prefer a fossil photograph to an artist's depiction in the taxobox. If we have a photograph of a newer reconstruction, that would be preferable, but if we don't, what's the harm in adding a caption that says 'this is an outdated reconstruction'? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pectoral girdles and muscles

I emailed Scott Hartman whilst doing the melanorosauus pic, and one thing I did wrong was having the shoulder blades too far apart. I sent a photo of a mount to him and he hacked it up to show what the shoulders should look like, he also kindly drew were some of the muscels go, This is Camarasaurus the origanl [12] and the altered with muscles [13]. He also said to, 'look at how David Krentz sculpted the muscles on his antedilluvial triceratops at his website for a good example of how the shoulder muscles look (www.krentzpresentz.com), but not his earlier pieces' Some may already know this but I thought it might be usful. [14] Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image pages deleted in transfer to commons

When some of our images have been transferred to commons, their en.wiki image space pages were deleted, along with categories, such as category:approved dinosaur images, etc. Please check your older images to make sure they are still in the approved categories! de Bivort 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many photos of skeletons of dinosaurs and other extinct animals

I found this site, and the guy who owns it says all the images are free to use, as long as the site is credited.[15]

I've sent him an email asking what license he wants them uploaded under, and if he took the pictures himself, which I assume he did. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, Creationism.org? J. Spencer (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
NO way, I refuse to endorse any picture that has "creationism.org" listed in the credits... Sheep81 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
By crediting Creationism.org, we would be lending credence to a discredited and unscientific belief. A link to Creationism.org might well be acceptable in articles or illustrations relating to Creationism, but is not appropriate for dinosaur articles, or articles which illustrate them. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See, that's the only "catch", but is it really that bad? There would simply be a link to where the picture was taken from under the "source" parameter when uploaded to Commons. The pictures I'm talking about where taken at actual museums, so there's nothing inherently wrong with them. Here's a gallery of pictures from the Denver Museum of Nature & Science for example[16], he does have a disclaimer on his page, saying the museum endorses the theory of evolution and similar, but it's not as if we have to include such a disclaimer too.
Skull of Paraceratherium.
Skull of Paraceratherium.

For the record, I'm no creationist myself, I simply found some of his images through a Google search when searching for Epigaulus/Ceratogaulus. I've already uploaded one image of a mammmal from his site, which was in the public domain due to age, and if you see on the right, you'll have to click on the image, then click on the source link, which is simply a direct link to the image, not the page itself. So to enter the actual site, you'd have to remove a lot of characters from the URL, and it's not as if most people would care to do that. I think that's a pretty small "price" to pay for having images like this[17] for example.

I thought I should consult you guys about it first, of course, as I realised it might be a problem to some. But again, the credit is rather indirect, it's just a direct link to the image under the source parameter, and maybe his own name in the author parameter. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The text right above the pictures states "as in other large museums - odd items like human-made dragon/dinosaur images (molded images and drawings), OOPArts (so-called: "out-of-place artifacts"), or photos of human footprints in layers where they're "not supposed to be" would be shelved away, out of sight" and the images are labeled, eg., "SmallDino3FloodBuried.jpg" (which, despite its label, is not even a dinosaur). Because these images aren't even properly labeled on the site, their usefulness here is limited anyway: it could even be considered Original Research to try to identify which genera they belong to.
I know you are not a Creationist, for the record. I have dozens of pictures that I took at the Denver Science Museum last year, and will gladly upload them in place of the "Creationist" versions. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I noticed some of the images had unidentified subjects on that site, many don't though, and those are the ones I thought of using. Also, some of the images where the exact species is not identified in the file name are identifiable by the sign in front of them, like here[18]. But well, if it's too much of a problem with the source link thing, which would be there regardless of whether he requested it being shown or not (as on the Paraceratherium image description page), I'll let it go. Just too many cool, free images to waste!

Not that I think it would be "bad" if you uploaded some of your own images, that would be cool in any case! Anyhow, it's not even certain that he would allow his images to be used here on Wikipedia, which many creationists believe is biased in favour of "evolutionism", or so I've heard... I have asked him about this in an email which I'm waiting for a response to, however. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm from Europe, by the way, where creationist ideology is rather insignificant, so the "hazard" of using these images didn't occur as obvious to me. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unidentified skeletons

I've been scavenging Commons for pictures of dinosaur skeletons the last few hours, and have added pretty much all the ones with proper descriptions I could find to articles. But there are three images I found that show unidentified dinosaurs, so if anyone is able to identify them, it would be pretty cool. I'm not asking for "original research", I just imagine that some of you might be familiar with these exact replicas and therefore know what they are. Shown on the right. I've put them into the "unidentified dinosaurs" category on Commons as well. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Agilisaurus;) --Dropzink (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's a picture which was wrongly named as Carnotaurus on Commons, I've seen that skeleton been described as "Titanosaurus australis", which has apparently been renamed as "Neuquensaurus", so I'm not sure... Anyone got a skeletal or a picture of a skeleton so they can be compared? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ornithopod hands and Coelurus

A couple of things: It looks like the hands of some of our ornithopods could stand a tweaking (see Talk:Parasaurolophus#image taxobox): specifically, the Parasaurolophus and Lambeosaurus taxobox images have separate fingers, when the three load-bearing fingers should appear to be one unit. Also, the Lambeosaurus image has the loose finger on the wrong side (pinky instead of thumb).

Coelurus could use a revised or new taxobox image, since the old one is not proportionate according to current reconstructions (see here and at the end of this pdf). I left a message at Dropzink's page, since he created the original image, but he's been editing sporadically since the end of August both here and at Commons. J. Spencer (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll try to fix the hands if no one does it before me, do you have an (or some) example of a reconstruction where it is done right? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, Image:Iguanodon BW.jpg is a good guide, except of course hadrosaurs didn't have the thumb spikes of Iguanodon. J. Spencer (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Awright, I'll notify Debivort about his Lambeo drawing, as he still edits, I'll try to change the hands on this drawing myself[21], and on Dropzink's image, well, I think there may be other issues with that one apart from the hands (limbs, chest, proportions, neck), so maybe it needs an entirely new drawing? Funkynusayri (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey all. Image:Lambeosaurus2-v2.jpg is a revised version. I'm not surprised there are small errors in that image - it was my first hadrosaur, and the number of peer review participants was lower back then. Generally though, sorry I haven't been making many new images recently - Since September I've been on a work / getting a job kick IRL. de Bivort 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that took care of it; I'll go swap images. J. Spencer (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eye crest question

  • I was looking at some bird skulls and and noticed that many of them, like gulls[22] and eagles[23], have "crests" in front of their eyes similar to those on several theropod dionosaurs, so I compared them with the crests of the Deinonychus skull reconstruction in Dinosaurs Of the Air, and well, is there any reason why dromaeosaurids and similar are frequently reconstructed with these crests in life, when it isn't visible outwards on living birds for example? Funkynusayri (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The continuing boundless influence of PDW, I imagine. Greg Paul always used to restore keratinous lachrymal hornlets on these (often connected to a beak-like rhamphotheca). As far as I can tell from the feathered dinos, most of the head was completely feathered with no evidence of external crests. I *think* even Paul dropped these for his reconstructions in DoA, but I don't have my copy to check. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spinosauridae scale chart

Does anybody think they would be able to make a scale chart of all the different Spinosauridaes? I think it would make a great addition to the article. 72.133.252.224 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I had actually started one a month or two ago but got distracted... That's where the Irritator scale came from actually. I'll see if I can finish it up in the next few days. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool :) 72.133.252.224 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coelurus skeletal

Anyone got one? I found this[24], but what should the missing pieces, like the skull, be based on? Funkynusayri (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the skull I would guess something akin to a compsognathid, kind of long and low and gracile. J. Spencer (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried it out... Funkynusayri (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)