Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration article is Spinosaurus.
Last month's winner was: Physiology of dinosaurs.
Feel free to cast your vote for next month's article.
Shortcut:
WT:DINO

[edit] Archives


Contents


[edit] WP:GAN update

Tarbosaurus and Alioramus are sitting at WP:GAN as well...if someone uninvolved wants to review them. I can't as I have edited both :( cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Subashi Formation in Tarbosaurus is currently a redlink. Apparently not mentioned in List of fossil sites. Subashi is not paleontologically relevant. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As are Sergei Kurzanov and prefrontal bone. Sheep81 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Prefrontal bone?? I've been kvetching about this problem for years -- See next topic -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomical humanocentrism on Wikipedia

I've noticed a serious trend toward humanocentrism in Wikipedia's articles on anatomical subjects. For example, many articles on various bones describe only (or primarily) "X" in H. sapiens. Hey Wikipedia, other critters have bones, too, you know. Take a look at Skull, for example. How about Femur? Pelvis? Vertebral column? Metatarsal? I think we're seeing a definite pattern here. If Wikipedia does have dino-relevant articles on these things, they sure aren't easy to find by looking for them.
Theoretically, we need to add a lot of content to Wikipedia on this stuff. As it stands, it's even arguably wrong to link the name of any given bone to an article with almost no relevant content. We should probably start a WikiProject or just a "project", along with the various other zoological WikiProjects, to create this content, or to make it more obvious where it currently exists but is hidden. Thanks for listening. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point - There is Category:Dinosaur anatomy, but the actual articles you mention don't have any info other than on humans. It's good to take a stand; maybe you're the man to bring the site up to speed? Everyone needs to take charge once in a while and this may well be your calling. Go forth warrior of wikipedia and attack! ;) Erm, yeah, gladiator speech over... :) Spawn Man (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name that thecodont!

We have an article Thecodont on the "thecodonts". Well and good. The article has a photo of a rather formidable critter, labelled a "thecodont", which in life would be five or more meters long. Does anybody have a clue what that is? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a Paleorrota thing, so User:Sergiokkaminski would be the person to ask; unfortunately, he hasn't edited in several weeks. J. Spencer (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Righto. Asked him (and I see that he stopped by today.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More informations about The thecodont. He was colected in the Candelaria City (see map in paleorrota). He has more or less five meters, was a big animal. the name is Karamuru vorax . The people of UFRGS colected this animal. He lived at triassic.
I colected 5 dinossour and 3 dicynodonts. I work with the people of UFRGS and UFSM.
See this page *Dinosaurs of Rio grande do Sul. and see de karamuru vorax. Have a move and pictures.

If you need more informations. Please contact. Sorry my english!!!

Sergiokkaminski (talk) 2:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Sergiokkaminski! Can anyone start a stub article about Karamuru / Karamuru vorax? Apparently in the Rauisuchia, according to [1]. Here are the Google hits [2]. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kudos and thanks to User:J. Spencer for quickly creating this. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chicxulub Crater is set to be on the Main Page on the 8th

Uh, well, what the heading says, just so you know. :) J. Spencer (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's on now - someone might want to watch it for vandalism... Spawn Man (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Duly added. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ultrasauros -> Supersaurus: Merge?

Yo, dino dudes and dudettes --
We have an article Ultrasauros which begins with "The dinosaur genus originally known as Ultrasauros is now officially designated Supersaurus. Please see that article for more information."
Assuming that this is true, don't we just want to merge the info in Ultrasauros into Supersaurus and make a redirect. Yes? No? What's the scoop here? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm on record in favor of merging articles on widely accepted junior synonyms into their senior synonyms (Brontosaurus -> Apatosaurus, Ultrasauros -> Supersaurus, Seismosaurus -> Diplodocus), with sub-sections on their famous alternate names/identifications. I'd support this if other people have changed their minds :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and merged the two articles. Entire paragraphs were identical in both articles, so there really isn't much of a loss by merging them together. There is a sudden disjoint between the second and third paragraph (the article suddenly goes from talking about Supersaurus to talking about Ultrasauros), but this was already present in the original Supersaurus article. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Article George Olshevsky could use some cleanup

The article George Olshevsky could use some cleanup (I've done some but would appreciate it if others would take a look):

  • Has an extremely brief stub about George Olshevsky, followed by several paragraphs about the Birds Came First hypothesis.
  • Seems to contain some personal opinion / speculation / original research.
  • Could use copyediting for general readability and for comprehensibility. (We might expect non-paleontologists interested in bird origins to access this article.)
  • Has some external links, one reference, and one actual cite.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Really big continent categories! Please allow me to diffuse!

Wow. Just look at Category: Dinosaurs of Asia. Don't you think it would be helpful to create more specific categories, such as Category: Dinosaurs of China? I would have gotten busy on this myself, but I didn't know if there was some sort of consensus behind the current categorization scheme. I think having categories for individual countries would be cool. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The geographical categories are meant to describe where the dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic and are meant to go along with a chronological category (ie, Category: Cretaceous dinosaurs, which by the way, is a much, much bigger category than Dinosaurs of Asia). They weren't meant to identify which country the fossils were found in because those countries didn't exist in the Mesozoic. Asia is a big continent though so I could see maybe "Dinosaurs of Southeast Asia", "Dinosaurs of Central Asia", "Dinosaurs of East Asia" or something to that effect if there was consensus. Sheep81 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the original discussion from 2006. Sheep81 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please no "Dinosaurs in Country X" categories. These countries didn't exist in the Mesozoic. There has been consensus on this for almost two years. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but I'm still going to have to disagree. I mean, a continent is a big place and such a general category is almost useless. Countries may not have meant much to Tyrannosaurus rex, but neither did Wikipedia. To Homo sapiens both are significant, and I propose we recognize this by merging the concepts and splitting the continent-level categories.
I strongly urge splitting these continent-level categories down to the national level, or even down to states and provinces (or making list pages for those latter ones, since that would be a mess). I mean, as a Dinosaur nut myself, I know I'd love to have a centralized place to see all the dinos of my home country or state, and I'm sure lots of Wikipedia's users would as well. Lists would be good for very specific locales, but come on, at least split the categories down to the country level. I don't think it's reasonable to expect readers to wade through hundreds and hundreds of articles.
On a related note I would definitely definitely support splitting Period-level chronological dinosaur categories at least down to the epoch level (Late Cretaceous, Early Jurassic, etc.). Seriously. Gigantic categories are a pain for the readers. I mean, don't you guys get frustrated by gigantic categories yourselves? I don't have much patience for them, personally.
Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Many dinosaurs (hundreds, in fact) aren't known well enough to categorize down to the Epoch level, meaning we'd have hundreds in specific Epoch categories and hundreds of others in general Period categories, and possibly some in both. It sounds like a huge mess, with the reader unable to navigate through the categories easily (because some articles would be in the general Period categories, while others would be in the specific Epoch categories). The locations of many dinosaurs are also generalized, and can't always be pinned down to categories. Finally, WP:DINO editors decided a long time ago to avoid the sorts of problems that Category:Dinosaurs of Vermont and Category:Dinosaurs of Moldova would create: these types of categories would usually only contain one, possibly two dinosaurs, and would necessitate the creation of hundreds of new categories, all vulnerable to vandalism. Since the project has very few active members already, adding several hundred pages to our already overloaded watchlists doesn't make sense to me. Let's keep it simple if possible, by not adding hundreds of tiny categories. Eight location categories are probably enough, when also considering the two dozen classification categories and the three time categories, and various non-dinosaurian categories. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just make articles like List of Chinese dinosaurs or List of dinosaurs from Queensland or List of dinosaurs from northeastern Uintah County? Then we can stick those articles in the appropriate category. Sheep81 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Argh! I was posting that suggestion, and you made me have an edit conflict and I lost the post. But, um, yeah, I support that proposition. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove anything from any existing "gigantic" categories. Making many sub-category listings is always a huge project. These projects are almost always started by one person who's concerned about the issue. They begin work with great energy, and make great progress for a while. Then after a couple of weeks or months something comes up so that they can't continue, and we're left with perhaps 25% "created" items and 75% "need to be created" that no one else feels like tackling. So please leave the existing functionality intact, and create redundant sub-categories if desired. (If everything goes very well and all the sub-categories eventually get created fine, then it will be painless to delete the "gigantic" categories at that point if desired.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, except there is no consensus to use country categorisation in the first place. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought we already agreed to just use list pages for that purpose? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrant topic update

We are moving pretty close to a featurable tyrannosaurid topic here. Tarbosaurus and Alioramus are now GA, and the rest of the genera are FA. Personally I think Tarbosaurus could move on to FAC if there is any desire to go that direction. The major priority for this little side project is now getting Tyrannosauridae itself up to snuff. I've almost completed the article in my sandbox, just need to write the dreaded paleobiology section (doesn't sound like much but there is lots of stuff to add there). Sheep81 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait... I need to write half the description section, the phylogeny section, and go thru and cite everything I wrote... never mind, not as close as I thought. Sheep81 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Be great to get Tarby to FAC, and Gorgy too...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I posted everything I wrote for Tyrannosauridae so far (it's up to 24K), the only major parts left are adding pictures and the paleobiology section, which I have been putting off because it promises to be massive. Feel free to contribute there if you want, and I'll work on it as I can... a lot of it will probably be pretty close to what's already in the paleobio sections in the various FAs. I'll spiff up Gorgy when I can too so we can get it to FAC also (no reason it should be left out of the FAC party!). Sheep81 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, I have one or two things on my plate but I'll see what I can do. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a once-over over Tarbosaurus and I feel it's ready to roll really. Anyone else? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't be around much this weekend and I'm working a lot next week but I'll stop in when possible if you send it. Sheep81 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait for Firs or someone to drop in and we'll go, or maybe just nom in 48 hours if no-one does drop in. You get first dibs on nominating Sheepy as it is a class job. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm in. Sorry, very busy week at work. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got the day off magically so I decided to FAC the article. I'll be around all day to respond to reviewers. Sheep81 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
On the off chance anyone didn't notice, Tarbosaurus is featured now! Way to go team! What's next? Sheep81 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lambrecht (1933)

I have a copy of Lambrecht's Handbuch der Palaeornithologie at hand. If there's anything I can look up for you, leave me a msg! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

How can I help? I created Fernando Novas. --Paleofreak (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! Take your pick really- what do you like doing? If you like collaborating we have collaborations - Tarbosaurus is at FAC at the moment, and the current one being workd up is Origin of birds, while the last, Pachycephalosaurus didn't get alot of work done on it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Article redirects -> Species

Araucanoraptor redirects to Neuquenraptor, but Neuquenraptor doesn't mention Araucanoraptor. I know a little about biology and dinosaurs, but I'm brought up short in situations like this, "Wait a second -- Is Araucanoraptor Neuquenraptor or isn't it?" I suspect that other people less familiar with these matters might be even more confused.
Therefore, may I suggest a guideline or convention of our WikiProject that such redirects should always mention the synonymous taxa somewhere in the article, so that people understand the relationship between "Name A" and "Name B". Your thoughts on this welcome! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this has come up before... I think most of us try to include synonyms but we haven't gotten to all 1000-whatever pages yet! Good point though Sheep81 (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Another thing to get 'round to...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I keep having conversations of this sort on different Wikipedia topics.
Please. Everybody. General Wikipedia guideline: It's much easier to include cross-references, cites, etc, when you create the content (redirect, whatever), than for people to have to go back later and try to figure out what's the right thing to do.
Thanks loads. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well dude, not much we can do about that now. Our first priority when the project started was to just create all the articles, only later did we come up with standards. :) Sheep81 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing very unusual about that. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apatosaurus. Brontosaurus. Two-for-One Special!

We have an article on Apatosaurus. We also have a separate article on Brontosaurus. This seems really odd to me.
There's some discussion of this at Talk:Apatosaurus from Feb of 2006. I think that a re-discussion would be appropriate. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in two minds about it. The main criterion for me would be the length of Apatosaurus once polished up for FAC. If it was around 30-40kb I'd think about adding it in, if substantially bigger then not. This might be a good project then..hmmm. Can we leave it and make an effort to make Apatosaurus comprehensive and then make a decision?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"I am in two minds about it." -- Hmm, I hope you haven't been hanging around the dinosaurs too long... :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha, cool!! Sheep81 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
One thing to consider is that Brontosaurus consists of only one usable section, some of which is repeated in Apatosaurus already. The rest is a pop culture dumping ground. Apatosaurus doesn't even have a pop culture section, and anything that went into one would surely be about Brontosaurus anyway... Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well that makes it nice and neat..like two jigsaw peices of a puzzle....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that the FA Diplodocus is only 34 kb, I'd be inclined to merge, presuming Apatosaurus would be of a similar size. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I agree on merging all the synonyms, also Seismosaurus and Diplodocus. We should maybe have a vote or something about whether that should be standard or not? Funkynusayri (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the Seismosaurus-Diplodocus situation completely resolved? If so then yeah, I think we usually merge synonyms where they are clearly synonyms. Sheep81 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems so from reading both articles, from Diplodocus: "* D. hallorum, better known as Seismosaurus hallorum. In 2004, a presentation at the annual conference of the Geological Society of America made a case for Seismosaurus being a junior synonym of Diplodocus.[1] This was followed by a much more detailed publication in 2006, which not only renamed the species Diplodocus hallorum, but also speculated that it could prove to be the same as D. longus.[2]" Funkynusayri (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the synonymy of Seismo and Diplo is pretty much universally accepted. I haven't seen a paper treating them seperately in ages. Also, for what it's worth, the merging of well-known sauropod synonyms has already been done to Ultrasauros/Supersaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I just don't read much sauropod literature so I didn't know one way or the other. Sheep81 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


General comment: In general across the project, we should presumably lump or split in accordance with whatever is the best current thinking at the time -- and then re-split or -lump if it should prove advisable later. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, that's what we've been doing. Several articles either started out as redirects and got spun off as separate articles, or vice versa. There may have even been a few that went back to their original condition. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Righto. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There seems to have been objections to merging some articles for notability reasons, for example Seismosaurus and Brontosaurus, which is apparently why they haven't been merged already. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have merged Seismosaurus myself but was a little perssed for time and wanted to think about what information should go where beforehand. Apatosaurus I thought would be better polished up toward FAC-type material for comprehensiveness before seeing if it could accommodate under the size limits (It probably can). I am not sure if anyone still opposes either. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New collaboration

Well, Origin of birds went down like a lead balloon. Never mind, Herrerasaurus is the new collaboration, which isn't a bad thing as this must be within sight of the finish line...let's see if we can tip it over....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Can anyone help with thalattosaurs?

Since they aren't really dinosaurs, I'm not sure if I should ask here or at Amphibians and Reptiles. Currently we have a stub article of about six sentences at Thalattosauridae, a single sentence at Nectosaurus, and nothing at all on Thalattosaurus. I've started a Thalattosaurus article here; can anyone contribute? - Posted by Vultur 4 February 2008. - Sig added by Writtenonsand (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI there's a WikiProject Sea Monsters "devoted to mantaining and adding new articles on aquatic prehistoric animals." I've taken the liberty of boldly re-posting your request to that project's Talk page. Hope this helps. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Vultur (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seismosaurus now merged into Diplodocus

OK, I have merged these two. Funny, looking back at Diplodocus it could do with a bit of a cleanup. Still needs to be massaged a bit and the text fully integrated nicely. Anyone is welcome to chip incheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Give the dino collaboration a rest for a few months?

Dear all, things have gone a bit quiet and folks (me included) are working on a few other things, so shall we put the collaboration on hold for a bit (say till April or something)? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. J. Spencer (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
...actually, we'll leave it going this month as you've nominated it and see if your zeal inspires anyone to help or tag along.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [citation needed]

Anybody willing to look up for that ugly tag in Suchomimus? Circeus (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured articles category updated

Hi there. I recently updated 16 articles so they appear in Category:FA-Class dinosaurs articles. I guess you all know how to update the project tags in future, so I'll just say nice work on the articles! Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of updating Template:WikiProject Dinosaurs to allow article to be assessed as FL-Class (featured lists), and I've created the corresponding category at Category:FL-Class dinosaurs articles. Is there any project documentation on what the standards are for a featured list? Something like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment? Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Not specifically for here other than the general information at WP:FL or WP:FLC...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleobiology and Paleoecology

Hi everyone. In spanish wikipedia, an user is reclaim me that Paleoecology must be inside Paleobiology. I always divided this sections according to the dinosaur articles here. But I saw the article Paleobiology and clearly it includes Paleoecology as subdiscipline. What do you say? Dropzink (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been splitting them for length, putting all of the topics that are external to the dinosaur (formation/environment) with Paleoecology, and all of the topics that are intrinsic to the dinosaur (gait/feeding/growth/interesting head gear) in Paleobiology. J. Spencer (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Same here. Sheep81 (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards

I was going through WP:FAC and I came across Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards, a graphic novel detailing a fictionalized account of the Bone Wars. Pretty interesting, eh? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please comment if you have time to review, since the last time I nom'd it it failed due to a lack of reviews, opposes or otherwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iren dabasu formation

Hi, I just redirected Iren Dabasu Formation to Erenhot, as this is the name of the next town and the article already contains some words on dinosaurs. Just wanted to let you know lest someone thinks the blue link leads to an actual article. Regards, Yaan (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mikko's Phylogeny Archive

Mikko's Phylogeny Archive has moved to http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo; unfortunately, Archosauria seems to be out. J. Spencer (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] smallest non-avian theropods

Could somebody please add a note to Theropoda#The_largest_and_smallest_theropods on the smallest known non-avian theropods? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Permian–Triassic extinction event

I'm having a bit of a problem with an editor that you all know so well. He can be quite tendentious, but digging through his edits I cannot tell what's good and what's not. I was wondering if I could get some help from all of you very intelligent, and knowledgeable editors on dino-stuff. Except for User:Casliber. He's into fungi, and I don't trust him. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you attempted to resolve your disagreements by discussion with this person? Philcha (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update!! as of early April 2008 CE

Alright folks, the new collaboration is Spinosaurus, some folks actually voted which I am very pleased about as I was considering packing the Collaboration away in the wiki-cupboard for the autumn. For any who aren't fussed about that one, there's Petey above, which'd be great to see at FAC too, and Gorgosaurus. (Where is Sheepy anyway?)

Right, Seismosaurus was merged into Diplodocus by yours truly some time back so some massaging there may be in order.

Anyway, where I am the pages are taking forerver to load and I have to run off for a bit so will update collab templates yada yada yada later....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Featured dinosaurs

Hello, folks. This is to let you know that I have nominated Category:Featured dinosaurs for deletion. You can find my rationale and the deletion debate here. Please stop by. :) — Dulcem (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joining

Can I join? I have been on for more than 4 days now, I know a lot about dinosaurs(more than my entire school ;) ) and other prehistoric creatures. So what do you think? -Walkingwith08 (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Walkingwith08. If you want to do this the formal way, we've got this page :). At the moment, we have an open list of tasks, a list of things to do over at the portal page, and an article put up for collaboration (Spinosaurus). Thanks for dropping by, and don't hesitate to ask questions! J. Spencer (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgosaurus at FAC

OK folks, after it was sitting so close to FAC for so long I copyedited Gorgosaurus and discussed with Sheepy who was happy for it to be nominated. Drop in and comment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And Gorgosaurus wins! J. Spencer (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed/undescribed specimens?

Just wanted to express some concern over the use of separate articles for unnamed specimens. In the past, we'd been talking about individual specimens on the page for the corresponding genus unless they're especially notable (e.g. Sue). In some cases, individual specimens are based on juveniles or eggs etc., and can't be assigned to a genus. For example, the tiny dino eggs from Thailand are discussed on Microraptor and Epidendrosaurus, two dinosaurs mentioned in the paper as similar in size to the unknown animal that laid them. However, it's things like IGM 100 972 that make me think we should have a policy on this. In this case, we've got juvi skulls of an unknown troodont that was not named by the authors (as it would likely be a nomen dubium). The article consists of one paragraph and two refs and repeats some info already present at Troodontidae. Maybe the best way to deal with these unnamable juvenile/egg specimens would be to discuss them in full in a paleobiology section in the article for the highest taxon to which they can be assigned?

For other, diagnostic material this gets a little trickier. SPS 100/44 was described over 20 years ago but not named. Etiquette would suggest Barsbold should be the one to name it, so it may still have a name coming (along with "Ingenia"? A man can dream...). In this case, I think the article should stay, as it's basically the same as any other dino article, just sans name. Though you could argue the same for a number of other specimens which don't get this treatment (like "Angloposeidon").

WDC DML 001 is another case altogether. This is an undescribed specimen which has been mentioned in an abstract and will be getting full publication in the near future. Isn't it jumping the gun to already have an article for it? What if some joker comes in here and edits the article to name it? It's a long shot but you're risking issues of embargo and taxonomic priority here. At least shouldn't someone check with Hartman to see if he's ok with this? Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise, tho it may be difficult to draw up a policy for isolated and incompletely understood specimens - each new specimen might well require new rules. I also don't see how the policy would be operated. Does it require a new kind of bureaucrat?
Re the specimens Dinoguy2 listed:
  • I agree that IGM 100 972 should be in a paleobiology section in the article for the most detailed taxon to which they can be assigned, ideally genus.
  • Re SPS 100/44, I'd suggest such specimens should generally in a list of "unnamed specimens of _taxon X_", in the article about _taxon X_ if not too many, otherwise in an article "unnamed specimens of _taxon X_" to which the article about _taxon X_ links. The fact that SPS 100/44 is unnamed almost guarantees that there's not a lot to say about it, because its discoverer / describer would have named it if the fossil had provided enough information.
    I've had a look at similar cases in paleoanthropology to see how such problems are handled in these articles. The separate articles about the hominid skulls KNM ER 1813, KNM ER 1805 and OH 24 add nothing to the info presented in Homo habilis. But I'm not sure they should be under Homo habilis as Homo habilis provides no refs to show a scientific consensus that they belong there. There's also no separate article about KNM-ER 1470, which IIRC has been the subject of debate for decades. If such cases came up in dinosaurs I'd advocate a separate "unassigned specimens" article in which the debates could be tracked until they reached a conclusion, then specimens that were assigned could be moved to appropriate articles.
  • As Dinoguy2 said, WDC DML 001 is jumping the gun. I'm not a deletionist in general, but I would be happy to see WDC DML 001 deleted. Philcha (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I would very much like to avoid articles on unpublished stuff (for one thing, the very fact that it's unpublished means we aren't relying on primary literature for sources... even if the info is from a thesis or something, it hasn't been officially published... plus we definitely DO NOT want to be the first published source on anything). Unnamed specimens that have been described in published literature to some extent are a slightly different story, but I still think they would be better off included in a family/genus type article rather than having their own article. Often the published information on these unnamed specimens is outdated or incomplete as well. Sheep81 (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Especially since people are starting to cull info from Wiki to publish as books, like in the recent example from Germany. For all I know we may have already officially published WDC DML 001. Whoops, sorry Scott! Do we attribute it to Wikipedia, 2008? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We'd have to name it to have published WDC DML 001, and there are probably a few other things we'd need to fulfill, so that's not the first thing I'd be concerned about. I'd be more concerned about embargoes. It's probably not in play for WDC, since it was at SVP, had an abstract, and has been mentioned in other articles (in the NMMNH Morrison volume of 2006, for example), but I don't know about every case. I'd prefer to be tighter on nomina nuda. I've never been happy with "Alshanosaurus" and buddies, even if they are perhaps the worst-kept secret in the history of paleontology, and I specifically held back on creating Dollodon and Dakotadon articles (or even adding them to the list of dinosaurs) until the paper actually came out. J. Spencer (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birds. WikiProject Dinosaurs.

(If this was previously discussed, please direct us to archive. Thanks.)
Should the template {{WikiProject Dinosaurs}} be added to Talk:Bird? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree to allow paraphyly in this case, hey? Wikipeojects are broken up to allow people to work on specific areas, and speaking for myself, I can't be bothered to patrol the hundreds (thousands?) of bird pages... Another way to look at it, should we add Wikiproject Fish templates to the dinosaur pages? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh. :-D -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't add the tag, but I wouldn't revert it if someone else added it. J. Spencer (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Those damnable bird types might, though. They dislike dinosaurs and ruthlessly push an anti-dino POV on the Bird article. :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's sarcasm right? I think a little paranoia over us dino types trying to change every instance of the word "bird" to "avian feathersaurus rex iz teh awesomez my cladogram sez so!" is justified ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I do ornithischians.  :) J. Spencer (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Coming soon to a T-shirt near you! :-D -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theropod Database

The Theropod Database is out again; most recent working Internet Archive version is here. J. Spencer (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(actually, a yet more recent version is here, but he updated so rarely anyway; not all pages are present in the same versions, so preview and check around). J. Spencer (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it, the Graveyard also is out (replaced by one of those inane generico commercial sites). External links = this for the Graveyard (mostly pterosaurs), and this for The Theropod Database. J. Spencer (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retiring the Collaboration for a few months?

Hey folks, we haven't seen much action with collaborations for a bit. How do we feel about putting it in recess for a few months, till July or something and we can maybe revive it when people are a bit recharged maybe? Thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to see the collaboration go away, as that was one of the nice things about the project. Work duties have kept me offline, but I hope to find some time to work on Spino this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cretaceous North America

What is the name of the sea that divided North America in the Late Cretaceous? I'm working on the Nichollsia article and want to tell the reader what it is doing in the middle of Alberta. I searched "map of the cretaceous world" on Yahoo! and came up with a map for some game, which called it the Vermillion Sea, but then I realized that they may have made up names for the purpose of the game's map. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It' usually called the Western Interior Seaway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, almost always, with "Cretaceous Interior Seaway" a distant second. Sheep81 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bałtów Jurassic Park

Stegosaurus in popular culture has an IMHO pretty nice model of a Stegosaurus from "Bałtów Jurassic Park", which as you can see is a redlink. Searching for "Bałtów" gives a disamb page with two places named "Bałtów", both of which are currently redlinks.
I have a vague recollection that I've seen another photo or two from this park on Wikipedia, but can't track down where. The photo's caption gives a link to the park's website at http://baltowskipark.pl/ (English pages indexed at http://baltowskipark.pl/index_en.php ), and the other models they have are also IMHO not bad at all.
So, to finally get to my point -

  • Should we make an article on this place?
  • Do we have / Should we make a list of "dinosaur parks"?

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It has a category on Commons, that's all I know about it: [3]. It seems to be part of a larger park, not necessarily related to dinosaurs.[4] Funkynusayri (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cenozoic 2

What does Cenozoic 2 mean? Or 3? Here's the page where I found them: http://flatpebble.nceas.ucsb.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=displayCollResults&collection_list=16533,16616,16669,16677,16681,16682,16697,16702,16705,16706,16707,16709,16710,16711,16713,16714,16715,16716,16718,16719,16737,16738,16745,16746,16747,16748,16751,16752,17039

Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know offhand, but the NALMAs (North American Land Mammal Ages) given, like Uintan, (these should really be articles at some point) are solidly within the Cenozoic. J. Spencer (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like that database uses 1-5 to specify which part of the Cenozoic they are referring to. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles R. Knight

According to a discussion currently on the DML, artwork by Knight is still copyrighted by his estate and will not go into public domain until 2023. I've noticed a few Knight pics around the dino pages, but these should be removed as unfree images. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, could you post the discussion? They may claim copyright, but in America, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain, and there's not much to do about it, see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. I doubt the guys on Commons will agree to delete it, they recently had a similar case where someone claimed copyright on PD stuff, which they denied: [5] Funkynusayri (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Knight's stuff was originally published before 1923 but has since been published in numerous sources, would this possibly affect the copyright status? Knight's estate seems to offer his works for licensing, which would be pointless if they were free and clear public domain. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if the material was copyright-renewed, the images are in the public domain if first published before 1923. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it is republished, but some of Knight's work was apparently first published after 1923, so we should of course keep from uploading that stuff. Only images where it is certain that they were published before 1923 have been uploaded, as far as I know. Funkynusayri (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought images on Wikipedia should be uploaded assuming they are legal for everyone to use-- which would mean that these images should not be uploaded. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? If they are in the public domain due to age (as these are), they are free for any use. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind...I misread the discussion. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just subscribed to the mailing list, and it seems like they're discussion the copyright status of work published after 1923. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my confusion came from the fact that they're citing death of the author + 70 years, which as you said does not apply before 1923 (Knight died in 1953). Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Knight is ours! Funkynusayri (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured topic

Hi., i am wondering why the dinosaurs FA level article and the various FAs of dinosaur species haven't been nominated for FEATURED TOPIC? I can't think of any topic (except probably the Solar System) having more featured content. Just a thought --192.8.222.82 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The idea has come up, but we'd need a lot more FAs and GAs because of the number of dinosaur articles. A possible subgroup, though, would be the tyrannosaurids, which are getting closer. J. Spencer (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cross-posted from Ichabodcraniosaurus

Can anybody provide reliable sources for Ichabodcraniosaurus? The third link is dead, and the other two go to a mailing list. Corvus cornixtalk 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

J. Spencer (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The original source appears to be Novacek, M. (1996). Dinosaurs of the Flaming Cliffs, Anchor Books. According to this post. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr

Just wanted to point out that Flickr is a great search engine for dino images, just search through either of these two links, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of images which can be freely uploaded to Commons and used here:

Images with CC Attribution-ShareAlike licenses: http://flickr.com/creativecommons/by-sa-2.0/

Images with CC Attribution licenses: http://flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/

Search for specific genus names, or just "dinosaur". Many images sadly don't have descriptions.

Funkynusayri (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a great resource, Funky. You've really done a great job finding images for the articles. However, I just did a search for by-sa-2.0 dinosaurs beginning with the letter Z, and got no results. It seems like only the more well-established dinosaurs would appear on Flickr. And recently, I've noticed that some of our articles are being overcrowded with images (up to four or so on very short stubs). When the text can hardly be read because there are so many images cluttering the page, I think we should expand the articles before adding any more images to them. A prime example is Huayangosaurus, which looked like this until a few hours ago (it still needs work, but at least the text isn't secondary now). Your image work is greatly appreciated, but if you see articles where you're adding quite a few images (or many images have already been added to the article) could you leave a note here or somewhere so that we'll know these articles should be expanded? While we're on the subject of images: Dinoguy once made the proposal that fossil images should take precedence over artist's impressions in the taxobox, and I think it makes sense. What's your opinion? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sure isn't complete, but there's a lot of stuff. Also, each license search has different results, so it can be a good idea to search for the same name on each. And I've noticed the overcrowding, which mostly happens on articles about dinosaurs that are popular, but do not necessarily have much text. The best thing would be to have all the images ready on Commons, so they can be added when these articles are expanded, but many times the photographers just upload their images directly to Wikipedia, and add them to articles (as was the case with the current Huayangosaurus taxobox-image, I've done a great deal of moving-to-Commons lately). If these images are removed from the articles, they tend to get lost, and will probably never be found again, so maybe it would be good to have temporary galleries on especially crowded, short pages?
As for fossils and correctly mounted skeletons in taxoboxes, makes sense to me, so if it becomes "policy", should we start switching images around? Funkynusayri (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that temporary galleries would be better than losing the images. But it really only takes an hour or so to expand most articles to the point where the images aren't overpowering the page (unless there are many images, like on Protoceratops). About a mounted skeleton in the taxobox "policy": I think it has to be used with a grain of salt: like you said, they need to be correctly mounted: IMO, it's better to have an accurate artist's depiction than a mounted skeleton in an outdated pose (like what we've done with Massospondylus). Firsfron of Ronchester 21:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So we should maybe add something like this?:
 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (December 2007)

By the way, I have to "admit" that as a kid, I had an obsession with cutting out dinosaur images from various magazines and similar and making my own "books" by gluing them on paper and then having my mother write stuff about the dinosaurs on them, so Wikipedia is a perfect place to carry on with that, so if I become too obsessive with the image adding, please whack me out of the trance! Funkynusayri (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of maintenance tags on articles. There's no easy way to tell which articles have been so tagged. Personally, I prefer lists: when we had the list of missing dinosaur articles, it was very easy to tell which articles needed creating. Similarly, WP:DABS tells us which articles are too short. The maintenance tags... to me, they just look tacky: the readers can see them, and it's just one more graphic added to an article already overloaded with graphics. As far as adding "too many" images... well, I don't think that's really the problem: it's the size of the articles that is the problem, IMO. Once the size of the articles is brought up to a decent size, it won't matter if there are quite a few images on them. That's my take, at least. Don't quit doing what you're doing! They say a picture's worth a thousand words... now we just need the thousand words to help balance out the images! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The "correctly mounted" caveat is why I haven't pushed that proposal very much. Good luck finding many correctly mounted dino skeletons (example: That Huayangosaurus mount has it's thagomizer spikes oriented vertically, which is unlikely given evidence from relatives. So does the illustration actually...). But if we do have photos that match current thinking on dino posture and anatomy, by all means these should be used in place of an artists impression. I suppose we should apply the same standards of image use to mount photos as to illustrations. After all, a mount is basically just an artists impression that happens to use some of the original material. It's like a 3D skeletal diagram. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an outdated exhibit featuring two Iguanodons. This is totally unacceptable in the taxobox. If it's the only image available, stick it elsewhere with an explanation of its fallacies.

Much more acceptable. Since this is the accepted posture and structure, this would be good in the taxobox.

This is even better than the correct skeleton. There are many users of Wikipedia that don't have a sense for adding the skin to the skeleton in their minds. This is the most accurate accepted model and would be the best way to represent a fossil species.

Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure any artistic impressions are better than a correct skeleton mount. The first and last are artist's impressions of the subject, whereas the middle is a photo of the subject itself, with the pose being the only speculative part. If people can't imagine how it would be in life, that's kinda sad, but it is our job to imagine it for them? When you get down to it, the drawing is a product of imagination informed by educated guesswork. The skeleton is the subject itself, no imaginary elements present. Personally, I think the best way to represent a fossil species is by showing... the fossil. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe skull images (if available, and if it is fully known) should be preferred over full skeletons in taxoboxes, since the possibility of inaccuracy due to wrong postures will be eliminated that way? FunkMonk (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
But that won't avoid inaccurate jugals, bad skull reconstructions, and forehead horns. Even the heads can be reconstructed incorrectly. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh, no... But for genera where the skull is pretty well known, like Tyrannosaurus, it would be fine, eh? I read somewhere that the skull of Deltadromeus was pretty much fiction, or at least the long horns, but I just added a skeleton reconstruction to the taxobox... FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "extinct genus"

Mark t young and I have been having a discussion about the use of this phrase in the lead sentence of articles. The example has been "Kryptops is an extinct genus of abelisaur". I think that "extinct" is not necessary for a member of a completely extinct group, and that it can be misleading because it may imply that there are abelisaurid genera that are not extinct; Mark disagrees, but he can tell you in his own words about it :) . Anyway, we thought we'd better put it up to the rest of you. Thoughts? J. Spencer (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that saying A is extinct implies that B is not. No implication is made, although the reader may infer any number of things; hard to predict what the reader will infer. A good portion of our readers will be children anyway (judging from the vandalism we get), children who really do need to be reminded that these animals are extinct. Even though it may seem like overkill to state that this abelisaur is extinct, a good portion of our readers will never have heard of an abelisaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The other thing, of course, being that out of a thousand or so genus articles, only fifteen or so have the "extinct genus" formulation. J. Spencer (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Do they all really need to match? Sure, each one should have a taxobox, some lovely illustrations, and have basically the same format, but let's not go all "cookie-cutter" and insist that they all need the word "extinct" or must not have the word "extinct" in the lead. There's lot to be said for standardizing the articles to some extent, but this is just a single word. (Yes, I understand the irony of me being the editor to say articles shouldn't be "cookie-cuttered" when I'm the one who created cookie-cutter stubs for a few hundred of them... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that we're entitled to assume that users should know that all non-avian dinosaurs are extinct. We can't explain everything in every article.
Let's let the "characteristic characteristics" of each taxon go in the top article for that taxon. I.e. Dinosaur (rightly) specifies that all non-avian dinosaurs are extinct, and then all "daughter" articles on dinosaur taxa "inherit" this. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting to this earlier, the project wasn't on my watchlist. I started adding extinct as there is some articles (mostly not pterosaurs or dinosaurs) that begin "extinct genus". Either way is fine by me, but I thought some consensus might be nice. But like firsfron said, there is no need to standardise articles too much. Anyway, can I assume we have decided not to standardise and leave it up to individual editors discresion? Mark t young (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crukhosaurus

I am not convinced the above article, entirely unsourced, is legitimate. Would someone with some background in the field be able to take a look at it and let me know what they think. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this Mattinbgn. The article is bogus, there's no such dinosaur. A google search turns up two hits, both to the article. Needs to be deleted. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And done. Thanks Dinoguy2, Mattinbgn\talk 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up listing

...Can now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Cleanup_listing. It includes all the dinosaur articles tagged as needing clean-up, references, NPOV, etc. 3.86% of our articles are so tagged (which is quite small, compared to other WikiProjects), but among them are some big names (Apatosaurus and Archaeopteryx, for example). Firsfron of Ronchester 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just finished refs for Apatosaurus and Archaeopteryx, and removed a bit on Camarasaurus. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generic vs. common names

Can generic names be written as lowercase, unitalicised common names? See discussion at Talk:Jurassic Park (film)#Dinosaur_names. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review: Museum of the Rockies

Hi! I was directed this way when I asked bibliomanic15 if s/he'd weigh in on Museum of the Rockies. While I realise the museum covers more then dinosaurs, the article's focus is currently the paleontological collection because it's the most well-documented.I've requested a peer review of the article and would appreciate any feedback you may have. I'm also off to tag the article for the project, which I was unaware of prior to now. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)