Talk:Procoptodon

Australian photo needed of replica or bones

I have read in the article that A full size life-like replicate is on permanent display with other ancient native Australian animals at the Australian Museum. . Perhaps someone could manage to include an image of this replica or at least of its bones, so that we could have an idea of its size and appearance. --Francisco Valverde 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image dispute

User:Apokryltaros has asked for my assistance on an edit dispute. The dispute is over which is the more useful and appropriate and accurate image A) Image:Procoptodon BW.jpg or B) Image:Procoptodon goliah.jpg. Apokryltaros, who signs as Mr Fink, feels that image A) is not accurate as Procoptodon had a single large toe. User:UtherSRG feels that image B) is not attractive. Other images of this creature are [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Please give your views. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 22:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, both images show a single large toe on each foot. What's the controversy? Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looks like someone edited the image. Problem solved! Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so is there any other reason we shouldn't use Image:Procoptodon BW.jpg? Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we use both then?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support using both images. It's worth noting that whether or not an image is accurate is more important than whether or not UtherSRG personally likes the style of drawing. Uther, I understand you've done a huge amount of work on animal articles on Wikipedia, and it's really, genuinely appreciated. But can you please make an effort to be kinder to the other volunteers of this project who give freely of their time to help improve things? Also, if you're going to continue labeling images as Original Research, would you please take the time to read what that policy actually says about images? The policy is here Wikipedia:OR#Original images and I quote, "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles." Apokryltaros's work is not only allowed, it is explicitly encouraged. --JayHenry (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of Apokryltaros's work is excellent. Some leaves a lot to be desired. Just because some of his work is good, doesn't mean all of it should get a pass. Each piece should be reviewed for accuracy and maturity. I don't think his image for this article buts the mustard. Also, I'd stopped calling original art OR a while ago. Please drop the red herring. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the vigorous objections and the insulting commentaries you've made about my art in the past, I have gotten the distinct impression that you have always regarded all of my art as being criminally sub-par. And as such, I find the idea that you would regard even one of my images as being adequate to be absolutely astonishing. Furthermore, I do not think that JayHenry's mentioning of the Original Research is a red herring: your vigorous, and unyielding support of the idea that self-made images constitute original research is what drives me to oppose any judgment you make about my images in the first place. Furthermore, do you honestly think I would let any edit you make where you make a commentary insulting my ability go unchallenged? Really, if it is a matter of quality control, did it ever occur to you that I could be more cooperative if you just asked nicely, or even make an edit that did not require you taking a potshot at me?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never once taken a potshot at you, as far as I can recall. I have only criticized your art. After some of our previous go-arounds, I went back and looked at the larger body of your work. There are lots of great pieces. Generally the ones I liked were the diatoms and such, where the multi-hued style works exceptionally well (although I'm remembering that I liked a few of your larger critter works, too, just far fewer of them). What I object to is not your style, but the use of that style for larger animals. The style of the BW image is much more suitable for the subject than the style of your images. This is not a critique of your style, but a critique of the combination of style and subject. And if you are going to insist on bringing up OR, then yes, when the image adds information not supported by the facts, then I think raising an OR flag may be appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The last time I recall, the main criterion for my picture of Deinogalerix being flagged as OR was that you didn't like it, and that there was nothing humanly possible I could do to fix it. Also, am I to believe that all of the commentaries you've made about my pictures being ugly cartoons or being hideously inaccurate were not meant to personally offend me?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I don't mind having my own images replaced with better images too much (it's a fact of life, after all). But I certainly do object to and oppose any edits with insulting commentaries about my images.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at both images in question, and then at what is known about the creature, along with the other images available, it seems that there are aspects of both images that are questionable. I agree with Apokryltaros that the BW image (despite some editing) shows a three toe structure, also Procoptodon is crouching, a stance that is not helpful as this was a leaf eating mammal who would be more often seen upright or stretching. The goliah image on the other hand shows a face that is fairly elongated rather than the flat face which this creature had, and eyes which are placed too much on the side of the face rather than the forward facing ones that the skulls indicate. I can see that having both images would be more helpful than having just the one, though another solution would be to have one of the images redrawn to fit more precisely the known facts. I've invited ArthurWeasley, the author of the BW iamge to join this discussion. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 09:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The style of the BW image is superior to the cartoonish style of the other work. The BW one does not have a three-toed structure. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, guys, sorry that my image is responsible of such a dispute! I would just leave Apokryltaros' one in the article and give him the chance to correct any anatomical issue you may find. After all, he was there first and this is a matter of simple courtesy, especially considering that there is no clear consensus on which image is best. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fair, generous and very Wiki-spirited comment. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't much like either image, as they both have various errors (Errors which have been mentioned before, so I won't bother going over them again). Would it be possible to use the Nature image (Image number 5)? T.carnifex (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... can you point us to it? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the fifth link posted by SilkTork. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6906/fig_tab/419440a_F1.html T.carnifex (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Any of Silk's posted images would be better than Mr. Fink's. Weasley's is closer in style and detail to the ones Silk posted. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem being is that the images that SilkTorque pointed out are copyrighted.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But as has been mentioned, image A is crouching. It is unlikely that Golly would have been seen in this pose often. I can also sorta see how they reckon it has a three toe look, by some ridging along the length of the foot, but to me, on first look, it looked singled toed, with the "hoof-like" bit on the end. As for image B, the forelimbs, particularly the claws, look a little odd, and the face is too long (it's a short-faced kangaroo) and it's eyes aren't pointing forward. I also don't much like the style of illustration, but that can't really be taken as a point against it, that is a simple matter of opinion. Can't we get permission to use a copyrighted image? T.carnifex (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Feedback

Can I get some feedback and constructive criticism about 2? This version features P. goliah pulling down a branch and feeding from it.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I can not view deviantart.com from work (and I live at work for 8 weeks at a time). Please upload it so we can all see it. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Procoptodon Version 2.JPG

rough sketch

An adjusted second second draft: I've made the face shorter, but I still need to work more on the feet, and bring the branch and far arm into focus more.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your assessment. Also, perhaps make the snout wider? Something looks wrong there... it looks too.... feline? rabbitish? - UtherSRG (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Readjusted the head and snout, and made the nose/nostrils look more kangaroo-ish. Is difficult to make a short-snouted herbivorous with long ears not look rabbit-like.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee... I don't know. Image:Procoptodon_BW.jpg has no problems in that regard.... Why don't you use the head from that image as your model? - UtherSRG (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I might be sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong (Me? Never!), but when ever I look at professional reconstuctions of Proctoptodon, and I look at the snout, I usually laugh and think Koala. And you could probably afford to shorten the ears if it helps, no one can really make any inferences to the length of the ears, really. The sketch is looking goodd though. T.carnifex (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the eyes now to make the head more dome-like, and more similar to other sthenurids' heads. Any more feedback, or should I begin inking now? (PS, I might make the nose a little more koala-like, too, or not, depending on how it will look)--Mr Fink (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Geology

I know in the study of palaeontolgy, earth sciences are quite important, but I fail to see how a page about an extinct species of marsupial really relates to a wikiproject concerned with geology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.carnifex (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of L. fasciatus reference.

Prideaux and Warburton (2010) suggest that the Lagostrophine split occurred in the early Miocene, whereas the Sthenurine lineage split later, in the mid to late Miocene, branching from the Macropodines. This would mean that the closest extant relatives to the Sthenurines are the Macropodine kangaroos.

Reference: Prideaux, G. J. and Warburton, N. M. (2010), 'An osteology-based appraisal of the phylogeny and evolution of kangaroos and wallabies (Macropodidae: Marsupialia)', Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 159 (4), 954-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2009.00607.x

T.carnifex (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Procoptodon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070331021022/http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/metazoa/Deuterostoma/chordata/Synapsida/Metatheria/Notometatheria/Diprotodontia/Macropodidae.htm to http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Metatheria/Notometatheria/Diprotodontia/Macropodidae.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)