Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 12

Clean-up of articles which are too technical

There are a few dinosaur articles that are so technical that I cannot imagine they'd be useful to mainstream readers. I've just done a bit of clean-up on Tyrannotitan, which read like a formal description (still does, really). This one needs work, and there are several ankylosaur articles which also need similar assistance. Any volunteers? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how about a list? I've done a bit of that on a few. Some of the newer ones...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Iggy's up!!!

Congrats to all who worked on Iggy - absolutely fantastic job. Well done! cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Let's go to London, take the top off of the standing model, and hold a banquet. :) J. Spencer 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh! At least there would be more room this time! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I went there yesterday. It's quite nice really.... Spawn Man 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs = video game magazine ???

Started with Iguanodon, wikisurfed to The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs. There's some pretty odd text in there, for example, "Curiously the dinosaurs were reported by the media during their building in a way that a video game magazine would take interest in and report on an upcoming video game and though they failed to meet their deadline, when the models were unveiled they were subject to mass media coverage. Hawkins benefited greatly from the public's reaction to them, which was so strong it lead to what could be considered the first case of tie-in merchandising as a set of smaller versions of Hawkins' models were sold for £30 as educational products." Anybody care to take a stab at deciphering / cleanup? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I had cleaned up this article a bit a while back, and had assumed it was written by someone familiar with video games (or video game magazines). Originally, the text had many run-on sentences (20 or so) which I broke into smaller chunks for reader digestion. I really didn't know what to do with the video game reference, but the rest seems fairly clear to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say though Writtenonsand, the way you discovered the text there was like the way Pacman uncovers those little small round things on the screen. Quite remarkable. ;) Spawn Man 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights and cladogram complexity

I was planning on making some more cladograms ala the one for Iguanodon, but I was wondering if anyone thought we could get in trouble if they were too close to the published versions. For example, I have Curry-Rogers's sauropod book with her titanosaur study, which at this point is the best, most detailed study of the group. If I wanted to draw a version of that, should I use all the genera she uses, or should I eliminate some of the less well-known genera and clade names while preserving the spirit of the cladogram, in order to avoid a direct copy? I did something similar on the Iguanodon cladogram, but in that case it was more because I wanted it to be focused on Iggy and its closest friends. J. Spencer 15:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea, here, J. The last thing we want to do is infringe on any copyrights. Derivative works of copyrighted works are still copyvios, but I think it's more like quoting a short passage from a book: it doesn't infringe on the author's right to make money (because people who are interested can see the full version in her book). I really, really like the cladogram you made for Iguanodon. It sums up the authors' work, eliminating the more obscure genera (following the ideas behind summary style), while still attributing the work to the author.

You probably already know this, but the Project has agreed to use Benton's 2004 cladogram (for consistency within the project); more detailed cladograms can be used (especially if recent findings have overturned anything since 2004), but we want to be careful and not contradict ourselves on different pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we're using Benton's taxonomy but not his cladogram... in fact I don't believe Benton 2004 includes a cladogram? Mainly it's just a guide for ranks in the taxoboxes, but even that doesn't seem to work so well on the theropod side since he uses so many unconventional ranks. I'm starting to lean towards the Paleobiology Database for theropod ranks, which lists their publication info, etc., though Benton seems to be very good for Ornithischians. As long as you're not ranking things, use the latest and greatest cladograms available ;) Dinoguy2 00:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay; I'll use my discretion. Curry-Rogers doesn't add anyone to the group that hadn't already been there, so that analysis should match up with Benton's higher-level classifcation. Anything using basal ornithischians is going to be a real trick; you can have your heterodontosaurids as ornithopods (Norman et al in The Dinosauria II), marginocephalian relatives (Yinlong paper), or basal to the ornithopod/marginocephalian split (Butler, 2005 [Stormbergia], which is not even saying what he presented at the 2005 SVP...). J. Spencer 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Until we get some really unequivocal evidence, the basal ornithischians are a mess. Even after 200 years of study, we still can't be 100% sure Ornithischia and Saurischia have a common ancestor within Dinosauria. One or two good finds could reshape the whole group. Not to mention the lack of primitive Genasaurians (Echinodon is Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous, according to Thescelosaurus), and Cerapod(ians?). Since you are one of the "few people who care about primitive ornithischians", what's your take, J (or should I check your site for your position)?Firsfron of Ronchester 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, fortunately Dinosauria by definition includes the ornithischians and saurischians, but that may or may not cover some of the really basal critters (Eoraptor, Staurikosaurus, Herrerasaurus). The recent work on Revueltosaurus throws a lot of questions on any attempt to classify poor remains from the Triassic. The real problem with ornithischians is the fact that it's obvious what the derived members of any group look like, but the basal ones all run together as little beaked bipedal things. Richard Butler and Fabien Knoll have been the people working on the really basal stuff lately, and there is some work in progress on hypsils, but it'll probably be five years before all of these reports have come out. My guesses: heterodontosaurs are either marginocephalian relatives or basal to the cerapod split; we end up with a knot of fabrosaurs/agilisaurs that people argue about for the next several decades; if the heterodontosaurids aren't marginocephalians, marginocephalians split off after the agilisaurs; and hypsils stay paraphyletic. Thescelosaurus in particular just seems weirder and weirder the more we know about it. J. Spencer 20:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's Titanosauria:

A simplified cladogram of Titanosauria, drawn after Curry-Rogers (2005).

Note that she uses Nemegtosaurinae, whereas we use Nemegtosauridae, and Saltasauridae instead of Titanosauridae; those two issues are really just tomatoe-tomatoh and easily dealt with in the text, but I'll do something about it if they're too distracting. J. Spencer 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's beautiful, and I don't think the -inae/-idae issue is... an issue. However, you may want to stick ii in the Image Review section; I'm pretty sure Dinoguy is watching IR, and he may have additional comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't quite right with the Nemegtosauridae thing; she actually called it the "Rapetosaurus clade" in the article (unsurprising, as Rapetosaurus is her "baby"), but that's where a Nemegtosaurinae would be, had she elected to name it. Clade by implication. J. Spencer 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Maybe it would be possible to draw the arrows in a slightly different color, so it wouldn't look like the Nemegtosaurinae aren't branching off both the Saltasauridae and the group leading up to the Ophistocoelicaudia? I realize it's quite apprent this isn't happening in the full-sized version, but many people won't click on the thumbnail. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. I made it in greyscale, but there ought to be something I can do to differentiate the arrows. J. Spencer 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's no longer a problem with Nemegtosaurinae removed per Dinoguy's observation on the IR page, but I'll still give it some thought, because I'm bound to run into an inconvenient internal clade somewhere if I keep doing these. J. Spencer 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting on next collab.........

OK folks, after some amazing work on Iggy and Compy (and Archie by the looks of things), there's a bunch of candidates for the next collab and possibly no backlog (!). Now Thescelosaurus leads but a whole bunch of other dinos are tied for 2nd spot. Who will win.....take your chance and vote now....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - stats:

• generally we have 4 theropods, 2 ceratopsians, 1 sauropod, 1 stegosaur (or thyreophore as you like), and 1 ornithopod.
• temporally we have 6 cretaceous and 3 jurassic
• geographically we have 5 Nth American, 2 Asian and 2 European dinos (All from the Nthn Hemisphere!)

Something to think about anyway...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration -- Writtenonsand 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - Given Thescelosaurus is polishing up so well I have fast tracked the next vote to April 1st (instead of mid-april), so knock yerselves out..........cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus

Just a note - this needs expanding in the species section. Actually, this could be an FA one day..cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in all reality, all but the most unknown dino could eventually become an FA... Spawn Man 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's get started on "Unicerosaurus"! ;) (Sorry for being flippant). Firsfron of Ronchester 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see your Unicerosaurus and raise you a Scrotum humanum. :-) -- Writtenonsand 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not betting my Scrotum humanum! Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Realistically though, some seem to be easier than others. I found Stegosaurus and Triceratops harder to mould for some reason, than Diplodocus - I see Compy and Archie as pretty coherent really. Parasurolophus has 3 species and there's oodles of stuff on the nasal cavity thingy. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, big hint to vote.......:) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clade Template: for all your cladistic and phylogenetic needs

Look what I found at Ecdysozoa!

And a pertinent experiment:

Ornithodira	Scleromochlus Pterosauria Dinosauromorpha Lagerpeton Dinosauriformes Marasuchus <font color="white">unnamed Silesaurus <font color="white">unnamed Eucoelophysis Dinosauria Ornithischia Saurischia ? Herrerasauridae Herrerasaurus Staurikosaurus <font color="white">unnamed Eoraptor Eusaurischia Theropoda Sauropoda

Dracontes 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC) and Dracontes 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I like that things can be linked. J. Spencer 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried it out with Titanosauria, at Clade experiments. The only problem I'm having is how it handles unnamed clades; their "stems" become very short, crowding that part of the tree. J. Spencer 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for lack of a better thing let's use this HTML snippet: <font color="white">unnamed</font> for unnamed clades. That's what I used on the expanded example above. Dracontes 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! J. Spencer 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Macronaria Camarasaurus Titanosauriformes Brachiosaurus Somphospondylii Euhelopus Titanosauria Phuwiangosaurus <font color="white">unnamed Lirainosaurus Saltasauridae Lithostrotia Saltasaurinae Neuquensaurus Saltasaurus <font color="white">unnamed Magyarosaurus <font color="white">unnamed Malawisaurus <font color="white">unnamed Nemegtosaurus Rapetosaurus Opisthocoelicaudiinae Alamosaurus Isisaurus Opisthocoelicaudia

Here's Titanosauria. It's not as flashy as the Photoshop diagram, but it's a thousand times better than the "dash and slash" style, and it also has the advantage of being easily modified by anyone, as opposed to the Photoshop diagram, which can be easily modified only by me. J. Spencer 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me that's not sweet (although overly detailed and too close to the real one). J. Spencer 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about all the technicalities in paleontology, but you guys seem excited about this & it does look pretty cool. Can we use this template on all our dino articles, or only ones which need it? Etc? Hopefully we can our articles looking the best out of wikipedia... Spawn Man 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest only higher-level groups (family and above), except for flagship genus articles and/or those genera that don't easily fit into a family (hypsils, iguanodonts, basal coelurosaurs, some basal ceratopsians). J. Spencer 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is super cool! Once I figure out the code, I'll have to replace the ASCII cladograms on some of my favorite theropod groups :) Dinoguy2 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Before this turns into a procession of cladograms I've created this to show both you and the creator of the template some problems we may have and a way to spiffy this up Dracontes 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the definitions with the cladogram, but then the cladogram starts to get crowded. Perhaps the definitions could be footnotes, or something similar? (by the way, that Ornithodira cladogram is fantastic!) J. Spencer 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think definitions should be restricted to/discussed in the text. That way the history of/variability of definitions can be presented, and the cladograms are easier to read. Dinoguy2 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this doesn't have quite the same function as the clado template, but iTOL lets you make you make really neat cladograms from text files. Check it out - you write in your cladogram thusly (Ornithischia,(Theropoda,Sauropodomorpha)); and it spits out cladograms like this one I did for the Pterosauria. —John.Conway 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very cool. Does it have a function to make it linear instead of rounded like that? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it does, though I prefer the circular cladograms because they don't imply progression. Have a play around with it yourself, I've only given t a cursory glance. —John.Conway 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanotyrannus

Is Nanotyranus confirmed to be a young t-rex?

Depends on who you talk to, but it's looking better. There's a detailed discussion at the Theropod Database; there are apparently some skull and dental differences, but these may fall under age and individual variation. We should get a better idea this year, because books are coming out on a couple of recent tyrannosaur conferences.

(oh, and it's Nanotyrannus, with four "n"s. That'll make it easier to Wikilink. :) ) J. Spencer 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do any of these conferences shed new light on the specimen named 'Tinker' found in 1999? Last I heard, it was unavailable for further study - is that still the case? [1] Mistyschism 08:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Colbert

Margaret Matthew Colbert died February 24th, aged 95. She was one of the most outstanding paleo-artists of all time, being introduced to the subject by her father William Diller Matthew, and worked together with her husband Edwin Harris Colbert (of Coelophysis and Effigia okeeffeae fame). See the obituary here and Ann Brimacombe Elliot's Charming the Bones (ISBN 9780873386487); might be that somebody would like to do a bio of her. Dysmorodrepanis 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nannotyranus

I am currently doing a collabiration-style project on nannotyranus. Any help will be aprciiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DinoBird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Nanotyrannus (I'm not the OP here, just making a helpful link.) -- Writtenonsand 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from mentioning Jane (dinosaur), I'm not sure much more can be done with Nanotyrannus. I think majority opinion is that it's a subadult T. rex. Dinoguy2 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with Sea Monsters Project!

I am trying to make a Wikiproject about prehistoric ocean animals but how do i do it? DinoBird 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dinobird, I think you may want to go here first: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals. I assume that by using the "Sea Monsters" moniker you're really refering to marine tetrapods or more exclusively reptiles. If that's the case then propose a task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles and I'll join in, as I'm a little tired of seeing these lists peppered with red links:

• List of plesiosaurs
• List of crurotarsans
• List of ichthyosaurs

Why haven't I taken care of it... I'm only one person, with a life to boot ;-P Dracontes 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sea Monsters is Up and Running! DinoBird 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New Releted WikiProject

Its About prehistoric ocean Animals its...WikiProject Sea Monsters

Shouldn't the title be "Prehistoric sea creatrues"? The current title alludes to Nessie, Loch ness & the type, while you want the paleontologist type to visit your page. You current title will probably attract conspiracy editors, undoubtedly useless in the type of articles you want created. Just a thought, but well done for being bold & taking the inititive... Spawn Man 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

I'm getting itchy feet to nominate Archaeopteryx for FAC. Sure it may be a little bit off FA standard, but I feel the team does much better work under pressure, especially me as I need deadlines sometimes. I'm just waiting on Firs to do something & then I'll nominate - just so you all know. Compy looks like it's going well so Archie shouldn't interfer. Thanks guys, Spawn Man 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Noooooo! Don't nominate yet, please! This one is still so far from FA that it'd get laughed off FA island. It's got 11 red links, a loooong list of species, only 22 references, no DOIs... And that's just the normal stuff we fix before submitting. Archie will be eaten alive if you send it to FAC like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. A bit of motivation never hurt anyone. Besides, I'm not doing anything just yet. 11 red link eh? Let's see what I can do.... Spawn Man 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I've cut down the number of red links by 1 - a link was missing an "a". I'm thinking that maybe the museums are under different names to the ones in the article. Some investigation might be in order... Spawn Man 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Only two red links left. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows why Mayr, Pohl, and Peters indicate in their 2007 paper that most of the neck and the lower jaw of the Thermopolis specimen have not been preserved but the rest of it is well-preserved, while Jaime Headden indicates that only parts of the spine, tail and right foot are absent in the Thermopolis specimen, (and presumably these are the same specimen), feel free to fix the article. I'm at a loss here to explain this inconsistency. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that WDC-CSG-100? If so, Scott Harmann's reconstruction shows that part of the neck and lower jaw, end of the tail and part of the right foot are missing... See. Confirmation of Scott's reconstruction here. ArthurWeasley 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's WDC-CSG-100. I was confused because Jaime Headden's reconstruction is slightly different. But this document, Mayr et al (2007), plus Hartman's skeletal reconstruction, will be a better source for the article anyway. Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Headden's description is not that different. The same parts are missing although not in the same proportions and except it shows that part of the left foot is incomplete instead of the right one (?!) (Btw the skeletals are signed Qilong). ArthurWeasley 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Headden also shows no lower jaw, while Hartman shows part of the lower jaw. Headden shows missing sacral vertebrae and also shows most of the cervical vertebrae are missing, while Hartman shows most of the cervical vertebrae preserved, and apparently no missing sacrals. That is what threw me. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'd be more inclined to follow Hartman's skeletals on this one, since he works at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center and I believe has had first-hand access to the specimen. That also means there is probably more unpublished research/observation present in his skeletals, however. Dinoguy2 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry about unpublished research, Dinoguy. The .pdf I have (courtesy of Spawn Man) is Mayr, Pohl, Hartman, and Peters (2007). The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 149, 97–116. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind if someone from Wikiproject Birds helps? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sabine! We could definitely use some help, and, considering this particular genus, I think it would be a very good idea. Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll get hunting in the library this weekend. I know they have a few good books. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for all the work you've been putting in in my absence. My cat died horribly & I'm not taking it too well, so it's mightily appreciated that you guys have made sense out of that PDF & things. Hopefully I can nominate soon, but I've kinda lost the thrill for life at the moment. It seems like one tragedy after another for me at the moment. At least I have my dino crowd - the closest thing I have to real friends on here... Spawn Man 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I thought I would let everyone know, just in case there was some AfD that I wasn't aware of, that I created a new category: Category:Featured dinosaurs, to allow for an easy navigation of all the dinosaur articles that have made it to featured article status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think self-referential categories should be avoided in article namespace. Such a categorisation system could be incorporated into the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page template, though. Mgiganteus1 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They're all "self referential". It's not like creating a category called "Triceratops", it's a category that's (from the look of the work being done) is going to be expanded. The problem is there is not easy way to even know which ones are featured. Most people don't know about WikiProjects, let alone what specific ones we have, and don't venture into the discussion page to click the WikiProject Dinosaur link. Matter of fact, I've been on Wiki since 2005, and I didn't realize there was a WPD until I noticed the userbox on your page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's not a single other "featured [blank]" category that I am aware of... dinosaurs must be pretty special if they are the first! Sheep81 04:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oryctodromeus

Anyone else see this? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just got the paper. J. Spencer 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to nom

I am literally bubbling to nom Archaeopteryx & as per my comments on the article's talk page, I am now requesting your permission to nominate. There are no other articles on FAC, so this would not disrupt anything & if we work together, the article only has minor things which need to be fixed. The dino team can & has worked under pressure before, so this will be a breeze! Have I ever lead you astray before? Erm, well there was that one time... So...? Spawn Man 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay - Nom'd it now... :) Spawn Man 06:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives 10 and 11 created

Obviously. Archive 10 covers January, and Archive 11 covers February. J. Spencer 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Papers on Styracosaurus?

Anyone have any? I've been working with what I have, which is not a lot, and Google searches haven't yielded fantastic results. I can't pay $10.00 per paper, but [tempting voice] I can send a helpful user tickets to JP4 when it comes out...[/tempting voice] Firsfron of Ronchester 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've got a copy of Dodson's The Horned Dinosaurs, it'll get you through the night no problem, but here's where to get Brown and Schlaikjer 1937 (S. parksi). If you come across anything in particular, I'll see if I can get it at the U of M —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J. Spencer (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The AMNH site has a couple other centrosaurine papers as well; they used Monoclonius for everything back in the day. J. Spencer 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated, J. Yeah, I know about the overuse of the name Monoclonius. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

JP4 you say!?! Wow! Just a problem though... how are we going to get the papers on the dinosaur? For one, they're extinct & if they weren't, they're pretty tall & we'd need a ladder to get the papers on top of them... A problem indeed.... Spawn Man 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on a mission

I think we need more members for the wikiproject, to make things easier on ourselves. So I've decided I'm going on a recruiting campaign. I've got nothing else to do (And I've done it before with this project), so it shouldn't be too hard. I just thought I'd place a few ads here & there & do some other stuff in the appropriate places. We should see a better turn out in a short time & eventually a gross influx of users. Of course that user base will decrease, but if we manage to nab one or two full time dino contributors to the project, then it will be time well spent as we're functioning at about 5-7 people at the moment... Any ideas, leave a message on my talk page. And no, I'm not proclaiming myself supreme project leader (yet... ;)), just thought I'd take control of the PR side of things for a while, if nobody minds... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 07:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More users would be cool. I feel stretched at times, "like butter scraped over too much bread". I've been neglecting some admin duties (more than just the weekly blood sacrifice and midnight candlelight procession through the graveyard) because there just isn't time to do everything. I left some comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Science asking for volunteers, and I think some of the recent activity on the dinosaur pages may be due to those comments. I'm not sure where else we would pick up regular contributors, and with Sheep81 and Ballista gone perhaps indefinitely, and Dinoguy semi-busy in Australia, we're a bit less active than we once were, even with the five or six of us regularly contributing. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be worse; collaborative effort in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi has completely died in the proverbial.....By all means. I had thought of the wikipedia post for announcing fungi or bird collaboration but never quite got round to it...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete support. J. Spencer 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'll probably be slowing down my activity somewhat. I've been at a 1000-1200 clip for the last three months, but I'm anticipating cutting back, maybe to half of that. (yeah, we'll see how well that works out :) ) J. Spencer 22:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Naturally; there was no way you could maintain that pace. I was just awed you were going so quickly for so long. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to do something to avoid repelling new contributors. In mid-January 2007 I edited the Dinosaur article to: correct some serious mistakes in "Distinguishing characteristics"; correct the analysis of the advantages provided by dinos' erect limbs; make the "Extinction section" more balanced without making it longer (it previously mentioned only the Alvarez impact theory, and omitted to mention that a lot of other groups died out at the same time); and improve the balance and readability of some other sections. A few days later an admin reverted my edit because he / she objected to my use of bullet lists. When I pointed out that I had followed the style guide on Wikipedia:Embedded_lists, I was told that nevertheless FAC reviewers would not accept bullet lists (see [2]). So the admin who reverted my edit misunderstood the rules and / or the FAC reviewers ignore the published rules and impose their own preferences. There is no point in my contributing further to any article on paleontology until the discrepancy between the published rules and admin / FAC reviewer practice is resolved, as my contributions might be arbitrarily reverted.Philcha 14:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Round up!

Get excited people, there's a new feature that's going to rock the dino world! For it, I want you guys to provide on this page all the links for the following points:

1) All Dinosaur FAs (IE - Dinosaur)

2) All Dinosaur GAs

3) All good quality Dinosaur related pictures. These include any free use & featured dinosaur pictures that are described acurately & can be used without any problems.

4) Anything else you can think of that would be cool (IE - Formation links, notable paleontologists etc etc...)

This is a big project, & I'd like to work alone apart from this bit here. It's also a bit of a surprise, so if you want to be surprised, then try not to snoop around my contributions & edits. If you do find out what it is, then try to stay calm & quiet, so that the other people can be surpirsed when everything is revealed in a day or two... Thanks guys, Spawn Man 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

4)

A) Museums,monuments etc... Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Dinosaur State Park and Arboretum, Dinosaur National Monument, Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite,

B) Formations... Morrison Formation, Como Bluff, Mount Kirkpatrick, Barun Goyot Formation, Daohugou Beds, Djadochta Formation, Flaming Cliffs, Nemegt Formation, Xiagou Formation, Yixian Formation, Dinosaur Cove, Lightning Ridge, New South Wales, Lyme Regis, Maastricht Formation, Oxford Clay, Solnhofen limestone, Coon Creek Formation, Glen Rose Formation, Hell Creek Formation, Kayenta Formation, Lance Formation, Oldman Formation, Two Medicine Formation, Anacleto Formation, Auca Mahuevo, Bajo de la Carpa Formation, Santana Formation

C) Paleontologists...Mary Anning, William Buckland, Richard Owen, Gideon Mantell, Edward Drinker Cope, Othniel Charles Marsh, Robert T. Bakker, Jack Horner, John Ostrom

Heres a quick list of things that fall into the 4th section Kevmin 08:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite.

1) Albertosaurus, Compsognathus, Dinosaur, Diplodocus, Iguanodon, Psittacosaurus, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and List of dinosaurs

2)Amphicoelias, Ankylosaurus, Heterodontosauridae, Scelidosaurus, and Thescelosaurus J. Spencer 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Speaking of which, when shall we nominate Thesky?)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After Archie, unless it goes on for another week, let's say; at which point, if it's still going, it should be close to resolution. We may be at a breakthrough with that timeline on Archie's talk page, too. :) J. Spencer 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

3) Dinosaur-bird connection is pretty good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the images that originate via Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review have very unrestrictive licenses. But I think you already know this. Debivort 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay everyone, thanks for that quick list. I have a few more requests for the project -

1) Any articles which need serious cleaning up or have any clean up templates on them already (IE - Articles related to dinos that need wikifying, POV reviewing & cleaning up etc etc)

2) Redlinks. (IE - Dino related links that need creating - Please keep this short s we could end up with a huge list if we wanted to...)

3) Could someone please make the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/formations page into an actual article list such as List of dinosaur-bearing Formations or something like it? All you'd need to do is copy what's there to the article.

Thanks everyone for the help so far. Sabine, I only need GA's or FA's - unfortunately any other class can't be accepted... yet anyway. As for images, can everyone pick out some that they think are really good & would make a good picture for representing dinosaurs? Thanks, Spawn Man 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my favorite pictures is ArthurWeasley's Othnielosaurus, which would cover basal ornithopods. J. Spencer 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an incomplete list of some of my favorite images. Feel free to disagree. Image:Nanshiungosaurus dinosaur.png

Image:Othnielosaurus BW.jpg Image:Brachylophosaurus-sketch1.jpg Image:Human-styracosaurus size comparison.png Image:Lagosuchus BW.jpg Image:Wuerhosaurus sketch2.jpg Image:Pangaea physical map.jpg Image:Scelidosaurus2.jpg Image:Jinfengopteryx wiki.jpg Image:Sellosaurus.jpg Image:Sauroposeidon dinosaur.svg Image:Zalmoxes dinosaur.png Image:Udanoceratops skull.svg Image:Aucasaurus dinosaur.png Image:Tsaagan3.jpg Image:Jeholornis BW.jpg Image:Dilophosaurus.jpg Image:Erlikosaurus.jpg Image:Iguanodon skull.JPG Image:Pachycephalosaurus skull.JPG Image:Struthiomimus.JPG Image:Oviraptorinaeprofiles.jpg Image:Dromaeosaurus skull paris.JPG Note that this list is not exhaustive, and there are many other excellent images. These are just some that stuck out in my mind. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check on Commons Dinosaur images cat for some more. Additional ones are also in the different subcategories of Dinosauria on Commons. ArthurWeasley 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at that link reveals a feqw others I think are great: Image:Achelousaurus dinosaur.pngImage:Dinossauros brasileiros.jpgImage:Hesperosaurus1.JPG (Ken Carpenter's), and Image:Ultrasaurio.jpg, though I don't know if Ken Carpenter's image can be used for Spawn Man's purposes. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to forget John Conway's Image:Ornithopods_jconway.jpg and Fred Spindler's Image:Huayangosaurus.jpg and Image:Spinosaurus.jpg. ArthurWeasley 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The list of museums is huge, but here's a handful (most with poor coverage): Field Museum of Natural History, National Museum of Natural History, Humboldt Museum, Museo Carmen Funes, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Natural History Museum, Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, Museum of the Rockies, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. Locations and events: Dry Mesa Quarry, Crystal Palace, Crystal Palace Dinosaurs, Tendaguru (needs a rd from Tendaguru Formation).

The list of paleontologists is very heavily U.S.- and U.K.-centric. Here's some internationalization (and red links). China: Dong Zhiming, Young Chung Chien, Zhao Xijin. Germany: Werner Janensch, Edwin Hennig, Ernst Stromer, Friedrich von Huene, Christian Erich Hermann von Meyer. Australia: Patricia Vickers-Rich. Argentina: José F. Bonaparte, Rodolfo Coria. Canada: Philip J. Currie (needs to be moved from Phil Currie). And on the U.S. front: George Olshevsky, William Parker Foulke, Thomas R. Holtz, Joseph Leidy, Paul Sereno, Gregory S. Paul, Roy Chapman Andrews, Kristina Curry Rogers (needs a rd from Kristina A. Curry Rogers).

Artists: Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins, Charles R. Knight, Rudolph F. Zallinger (needs a rd from Rudolph Zallinger), Zdenek Burian. Art: Gertie the Dinosaur, King Kong (1933 film).

| Pat 10:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's actually a stub at Thomas R. Holtz Jr., but it should be moved to Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. (with the common). The page is also in need of a couple of obvious redirects (most importantly Thomas Holtz). | Pat 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Young Chung Chien is now written as Yang Zhongjian, so I made the redirect. J. Spencer 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Taaa Daaaa!!!!! Surprise!!!!!

Don't all rush in, but Portal:Dinosaurs is now open!!!! Yay! That's my big surprise!!! I hope you al like it. i had to get someone to create the skeleton for it (Thanks Kirill Lokshin!), but I added the rest. May I make a few requests in my absense, as I know that you'll all be willing to get in there:

1)That you don't mess up any of the formatting (well duh...) - I have no idea how to fix it lol.

2)The "selected article" & "selected picture" sections mustn't bew touched - They're on a randomisation thingy. plus, I'm only putting out FAs on the "selected article" section too as their leads are complete (you'll see what I mean...) As for the selected picture section, that's open for additions, but could you place any you want added on my talk page & I'll add them.

3)Any other changes can you run them by me first (well major ones anyway...) as I'd like to be the portal's maintainer (if no one objects?).

4)The "to do" section is ready to be filled - Just press the edit button on the section & add any links you think need either expanding, creating or something else in the same format as the rest. Please keep this section short, as there are so many that could be better - I've picked out the worst from the huge bulk Firsfron dumped on my talk page lol.

5)Anything else, pleave a note on my talk page (especially fixes) - Otherwise, sit back & enjoy our new edition to the Dinosaur project!

Thanks a bunch you guys (& girls)! I couldn't have done what I have without you. Regards, Spawn Man 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, don't worry about creating one of those little templates for the portal to stick in articles - I've got it all covered & will do it tomorrow or the next day (Plus it will get my edit count up... ;)) Spawn Man 06:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Totally sweet. Very nicely done! Debivort 08:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks cool - a good way to focus work outside of collaborations. J. Spencer 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, cool! This is for sure another milestone on the dino project. ArthurWeasley 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Archie is featured!

Archaeopteryx has officially been featured - And without even a single oppose! Thanks everyone who helped, & even those who didn't (Well not so much...) ;)... Another milestone & another brilliant work of art by WikiProject Dinosaur! Keep going guys, we're doing great so far... Spawn Man 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Woo, good work guys! And very nce job on the portal SM, while I'm posting. Dinoguy2 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Archie's an important fossil, and really deserved it. Now I need to get working on an FAC for Thescie! J. Spencer 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that we still have a separate article on Wellnhoferia, although the Archie article accepts it as a synonym. Someone should harmonize the two when they get some time. (Also, does anyone have the Feather Dragons book, so they can confirm the last details of the timeline?) J. Spencer 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cas has Feathered Dragons and I'll try to synch our Wellnhoferia article with Archaeopteryx. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw, man, I spaced! Elzanowski 2002 is in Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs, not Feathered Dragons. J. Spencer 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if Cas has that one... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus FAC

Okay, I did it, so you all can stop bugging me now. :) Anyway, I think it looks good. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thescelosaurus's the place. J. Spencer 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've supported, of course. Good luck. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor classification problem

There's a typo in Benton's online classification, which is reflected in the dinosaur classification article. It looks like this:

• †Cohort Deinonychosauria
  • †Family Troodontidae
  • †Family Dromaeosauridae
  • Class Aves

The daggers indicate extinct taxa. So either Aves has to be outside of Deinonychosauria, or the dagger before Deinonychosauria doesn't belong there. Could someone with a physical copy of Vertebrate Paleontology verify? In any case, we need to footnote the discrepancy.

| Pat 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a physical copy, but I'm sure it's a case of a misplaced indent. Aves should be sister to Deinonychosauria, not within it. Dinoguy2 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but still needs to be cited. | Pat 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Illustration Guideline Clarification please

I'd like to provide illustrations for some of the articles that currently don't have any. I would like to know what your feelings are about a life restoration based on incomplete material? I am starting with Enigmosaurus. Providing the other features are in keeping with known Therizinosaur material, is this satisfactory for inclusion? Mistyschism 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mistychism and welcome! Life restorations based on incomplete materials are just fine as long as they are on line with the current scientific "best guess" on how the animal would have look like. We sure can need your help as they are still hundreds of dino articles missing a picture. You can submit your artwork on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review page. There is also a sign-up sheet on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List page. Looking forward seeing your Enigmosaurus ArthurWeasley 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Help = You

Yes, another task you guys can help me with if you want. Despite my poor treatment at the Thesci FAC, I'm only avoiding dino FACs from now on, not the project. Anyway, there's a new section on the dino portal which you guys can help me fill - DYKs (Thanks for the suggestion Arthur W). What I need is as many main page style DYKs about lesser known dinos as possible. They don't have to be from the main page; just pick a dino & think up a coll fact about it & place it ehre or on my talk page. So for example - DYK "...that dinosaurisususus has the longest dinosaur name?" I'll do the rest. Thanks, Spawn Man 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we just clone the submissions from the achievements page for starters? That'd get you 22 right off the bat. As for others, I have a couple in mind, but I'd like to make sure that the fact is in the article first and properly cited. J. Spencer 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sure. Here are a few:

DYK

...that the chinese ankylosaur 'Tianchisaurus' (initially Jurassosaurus) was named after Steven Spielberg's movie Jurassic Park. The species name nedegoapeferima is formed by the last names of the lead actors of the movie: Neill, Dern, Goldblum, Attenborough, Peck, Ferrero, Richards and Mazzeto.

...that the dinosaur Mei long has the shortest name of all dinosaurs. It means "sleeping dragon" in Chinese because its skeleton has been found in a sleeping position.

...that the theropod Cryolophosaurus is the first dinosaur formally described from the continent of Antarctica (in 1991), but the second to be discovered after the ankylosaur Antarctopelta

...that despite being one of the best known dinosaur, Triceratops has never been found as a complete skeleton.

...that the pachycephalosaur Dracorex hogwartsia has been named after the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry from the Harry Potter novels due to the resemblance of the skull with a head of a dragon. (actually that one is already in the achievements page)

ArthurWeasley 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cryolophosaurus was featured on DYK in 2004, and anyway that fact is incorrect. It was the first dinosaur from Antarctica to be formally described in a scientific paper, not the first to be discovered. The first Antarctic dinosaur is a nodosaurid from James Ross Island, which I don't think has ever been described. A couple more:

... that Bonitasaura is the first sauropod discovered with a keratinous beak?

... that the taxonomy and morphology of the titanosaurs was revolutionized when a nearly complete skeleton of a juvenile Rapetosaurus was discovered on Madagascar?

... that despite being one of the three dinosaurs Richard Owen used to establish the Dinosauria taxon, the original specimen of the ankylosaur Hylaeosaurus is still encased in a limestone block?

| Pat 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they did get around to describing that ankylosaurian (Salgado, Gasparini, 2006, PDF here). It's Antarctopelta oliveroi. First discovered, second named. | Pat 15:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've updated the DYK accordingly but you are right, the dinosaur was already featured in a DYK although for a different reason. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Species binomial isn't a genus, right?

So why do Auroraceratops and Archaeornithoides implicitly state just the contrary? Dracontes 08:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They're wrong. I've changed it. John.Conway 08:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Thesci is now a FA. Well done to all the team who contributed & especially to Spence, who nom'd. Unfortunately that leaves us with 13 featured dino articles, so keep on popping them out or we might suffer from bad luck... ;) In other news, I've added a new DYK section to the Portal & will add Thesci to the featured article section there soon too. I've also updated all pages regarding achievements also, so you you guys don't need to update. Regards, Spawn Man 06:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really pressing, but... a graphic issue

Come on, mates, as much as staring at a pic of a T-rex head is fun, can't we come up with a better logo for the Dino WP? Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's start a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. I'll try to come up with a candidate. Debivort 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor Tyrannosaurus - you can't dethrone her on "B rex" protein day: [3] :P Mistyschism 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - she's the queen of the icon! Debivort 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean we could keep the T-Rex, but just make it a little more polished and graphic- in other words, a real logo rather than a scaled down picture. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)}

Blech. We had the icon for a full year. It may be time for a new one. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well apparently you guys are dissatified with it, then? When I get home I'll post some possible ideas, at least of what i am thinking of. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked Debivort's post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review? He made a new icon from various dinosaur profiles. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Dinosaurs FP

Hey all - does the Dino project have a Featured Picture? If not, I have an idea for one... Debivort 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Achelousaurus dinosaur.png is the only Featured Dinosaur picture I know of. There may be others. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's the only one. LadyofHats has 6 other dino images identified as "quality pictures" and one of them Image:Edmontonia_dinosaur.png was selected as "Picture of the Day". Cheers. ArthurWeasley 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

neat! Go LadyOfHats. My idea is to do a bunch (maybe 6-10) hadrosaurs, and then scale them relative to each other, and make a "poster style" array with annotations. Debivort 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds really cool. Though why hadrosaurs? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because I have done three of them already, and they have interesting diversity with their head variation. I could imagine doing "posters" for a bunch of different groups. So... Beyond Probactro and Brachylopho, can you suggest 4-8 other hadrosaurs that are interesting/representative, and ideally don't have an illustration in their articles yet?Debivort 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be delighted to suggest more, Debivort, if you're up to it. :) Right... 4-8 more that are representative? It strikes me that that's just about perfect for the various tribes within the Hadrosaurids.

Probactrosaurus is a Hadrosauroid, probably not a true Hadrosaur, lying outside the main group. (done)

The hadrosaurids proper are divided into two subfamilies, one of which is Hadrosaurinae:

Shantungosaurus is a member of the Edmontosaurini tribe

Gryposaurus is a member of the Hadrosaurini tribe

Brachylophosaurus, a member of the Maiasaurini tribe (done)

Saurolophus a member of the Saurolophini tribe

The other subfamily is Lambeosaurinae:

Tsintaosaurus, a basal Lambeosaurine (done)

Lambeosaurus, a member of the Lambeosaurini tribe (done)

Charonosaurus, a member of the Parasaurolophini tribe

That would be eight images, and, as far as I can tell, would be representative of all the hadrosaurid groups. I think these are all fairly well known enough to create decent illustrations. As always, some may be too obscure to illustrate, and I apologize in advance if this is the case. This would be a terrific image; I hope it can be pulled off. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

great list! I am almost positive however, that the FPC crowd would shoot down an image if it mixed two (or more) drawing styles. Can you suggest alternative unillustrated members of the basal Lambeosaurines and a Lambeosaurini ? Or if none of the remaining ones are unillustrated/ or well enough described, perhaps point to articles that have some sort of illustration already just not a paleo art one? Debivort 07:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry. I hadn't even considered that. And it turns out Tsintaosaurus was illustrated by Arthur, not you, which I hadn't noticed. Obviously, you wouldn't want to use someone else's work in your own. Hypacrosaurus is a member of the Lambeosaurini tribe, and should be well-known enough to illustrate. Amurosaurus is a basal Lambeosaurine which the most abundant dinosaur in Russia. Your work is/will be greatly appreciated, Debivort. If there is something I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is some information you could help me collate: A phylogeny of the tribes, if one exists, definitive sizes of each animal, and maybe their geographic ranges? Of course, I won't be needing those details, until it is time to assemble the poster, and that won't be a for a while. Hopefully I can have all the drawings ready for review over the coming week. Debivort 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also this pic Image:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg which is featured. Hey, now that I'm thinking of it, could someone post some of those featured pictures here so I can stick them on the dino portal (portals look better with Featured content, & so far I only have 2 featured dino pics out the lot.). Thanks guys, Spawn Man 08:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here [4] is a phylogeny of Lambeosaurinae, and here's Hadrosurinae [5]. Some may contain unpublished info however, so be careful (subtribe Hypacrosaurina, for example, is not a published name). Dinoguy2 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Shantungosaurus up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Debivort 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Can I get some links to good Gryposaurus reconstructions? Debivort 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a Gryposaurus skeletal. A google image search oddly seems to pull up a lot of Ceratopsids and Sauropods... Here is a nice shot of the skull. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Tyrrell Museum *used* to have a fantastic online tour of its skeletal mounts. Fortunately, Internet Archive caught it, and here it is. Just scroll to and click on the dinosaur of interest, and then click on the button "IMAGE LINK". I particularly recommend the Gryposaurus, since it's a profile of a complete, articulated skeleton. There's also a good Hypacrosaurus, and under "Duckbills" is a side-on of Lambeosaurus marginatus (crest damaged). Note, though, that in a pinch you can make up a generic duckbill body and just add a head, and only specialists will be able to tell :) (subtle differences in limb proportions and height of vertebrae, especially in lambeosaurines). J. Spencer 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Great (archived) site! Just be careful, though, Debivort: some of their links aren't correct: The main page has a link to Ornitholestes which is actually Ornithomimus, and, it's hard to tell, but the Camptosaurus image may be wrong, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Gryposaurus now has an illustration! Is there another member of the Hadrosaurini? And if so can you point me to reconstructions. Meanwhile, I'm going to start in on Saurolophus. Debivort 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How about Telmatosaurus ? Skeletal here. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Telmatosaurus now has an illustration! I'm going too slowly! Is there another member of the Hadrosaurini? reconstructions? I'm working on Saurolophus tonight. Debivort
  • Well there is only Hadrosaurus left I think, but it is a dubious name based on very scrappy materials (see). Not even sure that it is a true Hadrosaurini. ArthurWeasley 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, it's not even sure whether any others are true hadrosaurins. Under ICZN rules, Hadrosaurus, as the type genus, belongs to Hadrosaurini by definition, and other species may then be referred to that tribe. If Hadrosaurus is deemed too dubious to refer others two (according to some more recent discussions I've had, it's probably complete enough), then Hadrosaurini is rendered monotypic and basically abandoned (like many people are doing with Titanosauridae, based on the possibly non-diagnostic Titanosaurus). Dinoguy2 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with Tematosaurus then - it's illustration looks a bit non-canonical given the extensive discussion on the Image Review page. But DG - are you saying the phylogeny of tribes outlined above isn't valid ? Debivort 05:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, though you're always going to find some variation across different studies regarding what species belong in what tribe. Some people think Hadrosaurus is good enough to base the tribe name on, others don't, though I don't have specific cites. Taxonomy at such a high resolution is always in a state of flux. A lot of these members of hadrosaur sub-sub clades are almost identical, or seem that way because there's been almost no work done using postcranial characters. People have always just compared the skulls. I imagine more rigorous studies in the future will shake the tribes up a bit. Dinoguy2 06:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's why the definition of the Hadrosaurini tribe is problematic if it is based on Hadrosaurus the skull of which is only known from very scrappy fragments. Telmatosaurus and Gryposaurus are probably close enough to justify being classified in the same tribe, but it is unclear if Hadrosaurus can be related to them the same way. ArthurWeasley 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add, before we get too deep into tribes, that at this point they're most popular with Internet sources (Dinosauria On-Line, Dinosauricon, me, etc.), but are not used much in the literature. In the case of hadrosaurs, they stem from Michael K. Brett-Surman's doctoral work, which was mentioned in Glut's '97 encyclopedia and described in the first Dinosauria (1990). Some of them are defined at TaxonSearch, so Sereno's at least still thinking about them. J. Spencer 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC

Per a suggestion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jurassic Park (film), I'm looking for any fellow dinosaur fans to come help copyedit the article. Anyone willing? Thank you very much if anyone accepts. Alientraveller 12:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Timelines, cladograms, and everything

Recently, Circeus brought up that the various cladogram formats we're using have accessibility issues and suggested that we look into EasyTimeline or a similar function. I've had a look at ET, and although I don't know much about accessibility, it is a lot of fun to use once you get the hang of the coding. With some assistance from the author of the extension, I've been trying to see if it will answer our purposes, and I've got two examples for your perusal: phylogeny and phylogeny plus larger distribution. These are not true cladograms, but use phylogeny plus geographic location plus stratigraphic position to plot dinosaurs. Colors correspond to landmasses, branching points are arbitrary (put at 2.5 million years here), and age is only done to the stage level, because I didn't want to get into coordinating arbitrary smaller divisions at this time, but it's very easy to chuck in new dates. In the second graph, the section below the divider is for taxa that have been called hypsilophodonts, but are not included in the tree, but we could just as easily just have a distribution graph. We can also add higher-level taxa names to the trees, either by naming them outright on the phylogeny, or numbering nodes and then identifying them in a caption or legend. There is also a link (currently nonfunctional) that would point to a page where we could explain how to read these. I think timelines like this could work well in tandem with a cladogram; one would be clean and dedicated to phylogeny, and the other could put names in the context of time and place. Anyway, what do you think? J. Spencer 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks like it would be excellent for making phylograms (cladogram+stratigraphic distribution). The only thing would be that this is getting close to original research, since I rearely see nything like that published. I guess it would be ok if all the phylogeny, stratigraphy, etc. are sourced, but then you're still in the realm of original synthesis. Dinoguy2 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh--just looked up the term. I'd always heard phylogram for this type of tree, but it looks like it should actually be chronogram. Dinoguy2 05:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we stuck to single references, like the Dinosauria II, or Theropod Working Group papers for coelurosaur groups, it wouldn't be original research so much as showing the information in a different way. I know that some of Sereno's papers have incorporated a time aspect, and occasionally location (but not as I did), because he's interested in questions of biogeography and timing of dispersals. J. Spencer 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What if I was to clean up the second one and put it up on the Hypsil page, and see what kind of reaction it gets? J. Spencer 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Set nominations for the 2007 CD

Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Dinosaurs has a list of the dinosaur articles I've nominated for the set; I used GA and FA as a basis, but that may not fairly represent Dinosauria (for example, no prosauropods are on that list). Alternate suggestions might be more workable; user:Circeus suggested we could stand to lose some of the lesser-known genera, but I worry then that we won't have a representative group of dinosaurs, and considering the uncited, messy stubs other people have nominated, I think quality should be a big factor in determining what goes on the CD, instead of how well-known a genus is to the general public, but I realize I might well be in the minority. I saw that J has just doubled the size of Lambeosaurus tonight; perhaps a few others might be nominatable (is that even a word?)?

On a completely unrelated note, I'm finally getting a copy of the "Unicerosaurus" article, and can at last expand that stub. Woot! A lead finally paid off. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Birds and Dinosaurs

Bird Is Wikiproject Birds' collaboration of the month. We hope to have the thing featured soon. If any of you nice dinosaur types have the time could you come and check over the dinosaur/bird section of the article, particularly help with citations (the statement In fact, the bird-like hip structure also developed a third time among a peculiar group of theropods, the Therizinosauridae. for example) that would be fantastic. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

3-way tie on collab voting

Now its less than 24 hours and there's a 3-way tie...can someone break teh deadlock? My view is that Scelidosaurus is the most polished currently but that Spinosaurus could be a pretty big article...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What happens in the case of a three-way Colaboration voting tie? Do the dinosaurs involved have to duke it out amongst themselves? Or do all the parties have to file endless motions for recount in Florida? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. :) Mgiganteus1 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus has fallen back. If we want one that we can finish relatively quickly, especially in light of Styracosaurus and Deinonychus closing in on GA/FA processes that will also require attention, Spinosaurus is going to be a better choice than Allosaurus. You get an iconic dinosaur with half the publications and one-twentieth the insane taxonomy. J. Spencer 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do the dinosaurs involved have to duke it out amongst themselves?"

Teh spino would totally get pwned by t-rex lolzorx!! ;) Dinoguy2 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL omg no! JP3 is teh proff! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Phew! Glad that was sorted! OK - 3 months is up so all unsuccessful collab nominees have been archived. Plenty to work on now but is interesting to muse on what might complement what we have at Featured Status, so have a think and nominate away....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Southwestern Dinosaurs

User:Grand Moff Brian has recently begun adding this new category to several dinosaur genera articles. I don't believe this category represents a world view (sothwest of where? The category name doesn't say), and left a note on the user's talk page, but I figured we could discuss it here before any further action is taken. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the current system of going by modern continents is the best. Breaking it down by specific regions (within individual countries no less), would get way out of hand. Dinoguy2 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I'd actually be willing, though, to support a category for dinosaurs from India, given that it was on its own for a good chunk of the Mesozoic, and had a far more Gondwanan fauna than Chinese-Mongolian fauna. J. Spencer 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but would Malagasy dinos be included? Madagascar and India shared the same fauna for almost all of the Mesozoic... Dinoguy2 07:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good scheme to me. Also, since the Southwestern tagging has continued, it appears as though the Grand Moff has elected to proceed without the Senate. Are we about to be dissolved by the Emperor in preparation for the use of a super-categorizing weapon against Alderaan? :) J. Spencer 13:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally suppport that (the paleobiogeography thing). India and Madagascar and Laurasia and Gondwana and some paleo-continents (Sahul+Antarctica, SAm+Africa) are what is needed. "Dinosaus by geography" should contain Gondwana/Laurasia, the latter should have NAm and Eurasia as subcats, and so on until we arrive by the present-day continents + India and Madagascar, i.e. the K-PG boundary situation.

I'm not making much progress on the paleo-Earth maps. As my focus is on Cenozoic bird fossils, the times between the available material are awfully long. Late Cretaceous should be doable though. Dysmorodrepanis 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Including India in a category may be a good idea, because it was part of Gondwana and then separate. Is a separate category for Madagascar needed, though? It seems awfully small: could we make, say, Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar? Also, I think categorizing by Gondwana/Laurasia may be opening a can of worms; many papers don't specifically state which proto-continent the fossils were found in (just what modern area they were found in); couldn't this be seen as Original Research? Firsfron of Ronchester 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the "India and Madagascar" cat was what Dinoguy had in mind, which I think would be a good category since they were stuck together for quite a while and shared a fauna. I don't know if we're quite ready to fully get into paleo-continents (mostly, I wonder if people who search from the main Dinosaur category page would know to go to either Gondwana or Laurasia and then to their continent of choice), and I'd rather not have categories that just host categories. Also, would the categories then be time-dependent as well, i.e. would we then put Triassic and early Jurassic dinosaurs into a Pangaea category, later Jurassic into Gondwana/Laurasia, Cretaceous into the various separate continents? J. Spencer 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the reason I suggested a category for India and Madagascar together is because they were connected for a long time, not because I didn't want a separate category for Madagascar. I just wanted to clarify. Like you, I worry about the average reader not really knowing which one is Gondwana and which one is Laurasia. Also, several of the maps Sheep81 created were based on modern-day geography; it seems like this might confuse the issue. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I say we remove on sight.--John.Conway 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated this category for deletion. Folks can weigh in either way on this page. I'll also inform the user. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The category has been deleted. J. Spencer 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So... it looks like we have consensus on the India and Madagascar category...? There are dozens, maybe even 50-100 dinosaurs which could go in this category. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for it. J. Spencer 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar is up, so have a look and see if you all still like it. :) Feel free to change the categorization of the category. J. Spencer 03:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! The only genus I didn't see in there was Dravidosaurus, so I added it. Feel free to remove it if there was a specific reason why it wasn't included. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights And Cladograms, Take Two

(I moved this here so it wouldn't be archived until the rest of the May discussion was).

I don't see why reproducing an entire cladogram (in a different format) would be a violation of copyright at all. If I publish a paper that includes measurements of a new astronomical body or subatomic particle (let me assure you this will never happen, heh), I can't say "Ah-ha, Wikipedia! These are my copyrighted numbers! Now you have to round up or down to avoid using my exact numbers!" And what is a cladogram but a representation of a bunch of numbers? It's also no different than typing out the name of a new genus or species here... it was included in an original publication, but neither the author nor the journal can actually copyright the name of an animal and prevent other authors or journals from using it in the their own work. It's scientific information, that's not copyrightable. I can't imagine how science would work if it was. What WOULD be a copyright violation would be to scan the page with the cladogram on it, upload the picture and put THAT in a Wikipedia article without permission. Or to cut and paste the discussion section from the article and post it in an article here word-for-word. The images created by the author, and the text written by the author, are copyrightable. But the information contained therein is not. Reproducing the cladogram in our clade format here is not the same, since we are merely using the information, not the actual graphical work done by the author. Sheep81 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (w00t)

In fact, here is Wikipedia's exact policy on the matter:

Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works

Some excerpts:

"The U.S. has explicitly rejected the position that the amount of effort involved in the discovery of a fact can justify its protection. As a result of this doctrine, addresses, phone numbers, most scientific data, sports scores, the results of polls, and similar facts are exempt from copyright."

"Similarly, though scientific data are usually exempt from copyright, the specific figures and styles of presentation used to present that data will in most cases merit copyright protection. Also, in some cases facts that are exempt from copyright may still be protected as a result of patent law."

"Works created by animals (such as a painting produced by a chimpanzee) or machines are not copyrightable, although in the case of drawings produced by a computer program, the program itself of course may be copyrighted."

Sheep81 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...sounds reasonable..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We're certainly using different formats. Would it count if we got a chimp to make the cladograms on a computer? :) J. Spencer 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio if the cladogram was made by a computer. It's not a copyvio if the cladogram was made by a chimp. Therefore, it's not not a copyvio to use a cladogram made by a chimp on a computer. Double negative! Using a cladogram made by a chimp on a computer would be a blatant copyvio. ;) We'll delete them on sight, per Wikipedia policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cerapoda

Hey guys, I know I have been gone awhile, and I can't promise that I'll be that active from now on, so I don't want to go playing cowboy, stirring up crap unnecessarily and upsetting the consensus. But I was just wondering if you had actually come to some consensus over the use of Cerapoda instead of Marginocephalia/Ornithopoda. Is it because of the possibility that Ornitho. might be inclusive of Margino.? Makes sense. However, I just think that Cerapoda isn't as informative as the smaller clades. If Cerapoda is included by consensus, would it be cool to also include the smaller clades as unranked_familias since we are stuck using Linnean taxonomy in the taxoboxes? Sheep81 08:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, ya'll have rocked the house the last few months. Look at all those FAs! I'm not really surprised given the quality of people in the Project, but I am impressed. Way to go! Sheep81 08:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess Cerapoda was one of those groupings that never gained much usage outside cladistics and there seems to have been a storm of debate about it a year or so ago. I think mainly is that we all like doing individual dinos and so some of these thingies have been a lower priority (a bit like geological formations f'rinstance..) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cerapoda is used as the suborder by Benton, essentially. Using Marginocephalia, which was also originally an unranked clade, seemed slightly less desirable, unless there's a cite somehwere assigning it the rank of suborder. I'd have no problem switching over to the "traditional" suborders, as we have for infraorders of theropods. Suborders Ceratopsia, Ornithopoda, Pachycephalosauria, in other words.

Oh, and welcome back Sheep! Dinoguy2 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sheep! Nice to see you around, even if it's only temporary. I don't think we came to a consensus on this issue, but I'm willing to go with whatever folks feel is best. I like the smaller clades, but if they're going to conflict with Benton's (2004) taxonomy [6], maybe we shouldn't use them: there's something to be said for consistency within the project. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

After having used Benton as the standard for a while now, I'm not sure how satisfied I am with it. Yes, it's certainly a benefit to havin a single-source Linnean classification to present on, say, Dinosaur classification. However, Benton has an odd tendancy in his classification to assign ranks to historically cladistic groups, in favor of perfectly good, fairly important groups that bore those ranks in the past (e.g. Infraorder Tetanurae in place of Infraorder Carnosauria, Suborder Cerapoda in place of Suborder Ornithopoda, Ceratopsia, etc.), instead giving those groups ranks like Division, which we can't use in the taxoboxes. I think, at least for the taxoboxes, as long as the ranks are citable, using the more traditional ones might be better. Deciding which traditional ones to use is another matter. Paleobiology Database lists published ranks (but no cites for them), and they often conflict. Suborders Ankylosauria and Stegosauria or Suborder Thyreophora? Both have been published. Infraorder Coelurosauria is a pretty solid traditional sister group to Infraorder Carnosauria, but in the '70s and later a number of other infraorders of coelurosaurs were named. Use a paraphyletic infraorder Coelurosauria, exclude the newer ones, or what (as it stands Ceolurosauria is unranked). So... I dunno. What do you guys think? Dinoguy2 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is getting tough — we're going to find ourselves pretty deep into original research if we have to keep using ranks. Maybe we need some discussion about whether using Linnean is sustainable for dinosaurs (or pterosaurs), and how/if we make the transition to phylogenetic taxonomy. —John.Conway 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it will be that big a problem, since most of the major groups have been assigned ranks already, and it doesn't look like any more major groups are likely to be found. Using multiple sources may be original synthesis, but that's equally widespread in our phylogenies. I think a little synthesis is needed to avoid the confusion/cluttering presenting multiple, complete, differing classifications or phylogenies would create. Dinoguy2 12:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not disagree with upgrading to PT. We only still use ranks here because the taxobox makes us. Almost nobody in the actual field uses them anymore. And if we are just going to use unranked taxa, I wouldn't choose Cerapoda since it basically just means "any derived ornithischian which isn't a thyreophoran." It just doesn't narrow things down enough for my tastes. But I will go with whatever you decide on. It's not like it doesn't work as-is, it's just my preference. Sheep81 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with abandoning ranks in favor of PT--PT is not classification, it's a seperate entity, and vert paleo is the only field which seems to think the two are mutually exclusive. Any attempt at abandoning the taxobox is best taken up with the top-level Tree of Life project anyway, and as far as I know, all previous attempts to replace it with a PhyloBox have failed. One factor may be that this is this is a popular encyclopedia, not a technical one, and classification is simply much easier to understand for most people right now than phylogeny. If it makes things esier, despite my comments above, I wouldn't object to using a strict Benton taxonomy in the taxoboxes, I just thought some other, valid, published (though admittadly older) approaches would be easier to understand and could be made to compliment the phylogeny better. Again, we have the same issue with phylogeny as we do with classification: which to use? I don't think a little synthesis on this front is a bad thing... any attempt ot use a single source, such as Dinosauria II, is going to be outdated the minute it's implemented without incorporating info from new papers. Dinoguy2 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So what we really need to do is get Benton to publish a new classification, using the ranks we want him to use!Sheep81 06:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian claims of POV and Guardian article

Hi all,

This recent article in The Guardian discusses our Dinosaur article, and may be part of the reason we're getting a lot of recent Christian POV edits (Biblical accounts of floods and giant monsters) inserted into Wikipedia dinosaur articles. I've removed some unreferenced stuff today, but I thought I'd leave a warning here. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen almost the same comparisons in that article elsewhere, a few months ago, in my local paper. Hmm... J. Spencer 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care if it is biased against Christian beliefs, because Christian beliefs have no bearing on scientific reality. Just because someone believes something wacky doesn't mean it has to be included. Sheep81 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the simple analogy should be that, as scientists, we wouldn't go edit the "Biblical creation myth" article to indicate that earth was created in the big bang and that evolution generated organismic diversity. Debivort 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The scientific explanation is not even mentioned in Origin belief, Creation according to Genesis, or Creation (theology), except in wikilinks to refer you to the science articles. It is barely mentioned at all in Creation within belief systems, and there only where it refers to The Great Story. There's no scientific influence in the belief pages, so I see no reason why belief systems should have any influence over the scientific pages. Sheep81 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of wacky... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading things like that puts me thorugh something like the stages of grief... denyal, confusion, anger, sadness... Dinoguy2 06:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am cool with it as long as it keeps them out of our hair... they can do whatever they like there. Hey, that sounds like acceptance, haha. Sheep81 06:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The only emotion I feel when I read that article is mirth: "pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood". It must have been pretty difficult for Noah to get a pair of each kind of dinosaur onto a 500 foot long boat! That must have been one heck of a trip! Also: it raises so many silly questions: why does the article state "dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Jurassic" and also state that according to scientists, dinosaurs became extinct "at the end of the Cretaceous period"? Is "creationary" a word? Can the word "genus" be used that way? And most importantly, did Jesus really ride dinosaurs? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Some creationists suggest that juvenile dinosaurs, or even eggs, were brought onto the ark. But most creationists defending the ark have to resort to special pleading when dealing with the insects. Dinos may be big, but bugs outdo em through sheer numbers! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always loved the idea of Noah trekking through the amazon for years, identifying and collecting millions and millions of beetle species... Dinoguy2 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you know, Noah did have three sons. They probably helped collect animals. At an estimated 5,000,000 species of beetles, that's only 1.25 million beetle species per person. And if the wives also helped, that's just 625,000 beetle species. Totally plausible. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All that effort to save some bugs and they couldn't even find room to save two unicorns. Dag-nab it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure they saved two unicorns! And later, a fossil of one was dug up. Or maybe the unicorns were the "unclean", filthy animals. Then they deserved to drown. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The blatantly horrible crap in that encyclopedia is astounding. I have half a mind to crash their servers, but that would be mean... maybe if all the vandals here realized that there was a wiki devoted to their beliefs, they'd leave us alone. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Species of Psittacosaurus to GA?

Anyone have any objection to sending this article to Good Articles to go along with the Featured main article? Please improve at will. Sheep81 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully-cited, comprehensive (now that the new info has been added), and well-written. No, no objections here. We might want to blueify some of those red links, but I think it's an excellent candidate. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with it. J. Spencer 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's done. Sheep81 03:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, Sheep! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur size / Non-avian theropods

Dinosaur size lists "Smallest theropods". Do we want to change that to "Smallest non-avian theropods"? -- Writtenonsand 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, to be technically correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur renaissance

I've made a pretty good start with resurrecting the Dinosaur renaissance article, but I'd like you guys to look it over (I suspect a lot of you don't have it on your watchlists). In particular I think the section on the meteor impact needs putting into scientific context, and the section on warm-bloodedness needs more on bone histology. It also needs a section on the changing theories of dinosaur behaviour - nesting, etc. —John.Conway 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even known there was such an article. Sheep81 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you back Sheep. Hopefully you can make your stay longer this time round... Looking great guys, keep up the good work! :) 203.160.124.17 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Deinonychus skull image

I'm not sure why it was deleted, but the Deinonychus skull is gone. Anyone want to replace it at Portal:Dinosaurs/Selected_picture/3? J. Spencer 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also gone from the Deinonychus taxobox. Seems the original uploader User:Phlebas got it from a stock free photo site and some administrator might have found issues with it. ArthurWeasley 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a stock photo of a commercial model, so double the problems... Dinoguy2 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like a replacement on the portal page, or I shall lard it up with ornithopods, and we couldn't have that, now, could we? :) J. Spencer 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Make that ornithischians, and you have a deal! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the creator of the portal page would be able to fix it. Possibly you could give him another featured picture to stick on there? Are there any dinosaur featured pics out there that are not covered at the portal? If so, replace the deleted image link with that picture... 203.160.124.17 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Spawn Man would be happy to fix it if he was here, but he's holding to his retirement resolution. It's not too hard to work with, and I'd be happy to stick something else in there myself. J. Spencer 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review of Evolution

Hi everybody, I'd welcome comments and suggestions on this core topic that, sadly, has particular relevance to dinosaurs! Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1. Thank you. TimVickers 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why "sadly"? Evolution is a part of life, and dinosaurs evolved during the entire time they existed. Their decendants, the birds, continue to evolve. That's 230 million years of evolution. That said, I'll take a gander at the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks someone is a creationist... 203.160.124.17 02:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

True, my joke was not all that accurate. Forgive me! TimVickers 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. I didn't understand it was a joke. Nevermind! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We need an irony typeface! TimVickers 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding spaces in clado-template

Hi guys, just a thought I had when perusing the new clado-template which wasn't around last time I was here. It just looks a bit crowded to me because the clade name rams right up against the clade branches before and after it. In Psittacosaurus I added a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) after the clade name to give it a bit of separation. You could put one in front also. Here's an example:

Before:

Abelisauroidea	Noasauridae Abelisauridae ?Ilokelesia Rugops <font color="white">unnamed Abelisaurus Carnotaurinae Rajasaurus <font color="white">unnamed Majungatholus Carnotaurini Aucasaurus Carnotaurus

After:

Abelisauroidea	Noasauridae  Abelisauridae  ?Ilokelesia Rugops <font color="white">unnamed Abelisaurus  Carnotaurinae  Rajasaurus <font color="white">unnamed Majungatholus  Carnotaurini  Aucasaurus Carnotaurus

Adds some extra characters but I think this looks a bit cleaner. Anyone else? Sheep81 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks cleaner with the non-breaking space added. However, J was working on a timeline-based cladogram, which also conveys faunal stage information. A nice consensus on which version to use would be good here, for the sake of consistency within the project. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will say that I like timelines, but they require a lot of practice and work to do right. The clade template does a good job, though, and looks much better than "`--+--" type formulations. Circeus may have more to say on this, though, since he was the one who brought up the timeline template and mentioned accessibility issues with the clade template. J. Spencer 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, there are currently five ways we can express cladograms:

• 1: Written description - this is next to useless. "Serial outgroups"? "Stepwise arrangment"? "Unresolved trichotomy"? None of these make any sense without a diagram and a background in cladistics.
• 2: The old "`--+--" trick or other variants - it does in a pinch, but doesn't look very professional, has formatting issues with screen and font sizes, and has been superseded by the clade template.
• 3: Outside diagrams included as figures (see Iguanodon) - these can look very good, but are "frozen", because the only people who can edit them are those with the original Photoshop versions (or whatever they were created with).
• 4: The clade template (as seen above) - I've found this to be flexible and not too hard to use after a little practice. It answers our basic needs very well, and I'd be more than happy to see it replace all the #2-style cladograms we're still using.
• 5: Timeline cladogram (see here for an example) - these can present a lot of information, for time and place as well as phylogeny. Two major issues: investment of time and effort to get them to work (should be less now that we could clone some of my examples as starters, but you still need to plot it out on paper to figure out the ordering of taxa); and arbitrary time definitions. I put all branching at 2.5 million years, and rounded age assessments to the faunal stage, even though many of the taxa are known from smaller but less defined time slices.
  

I think, first of all, that all #2 cladograms should be replaced with #4. I also recommend not using #1, #2, or #3 in the future. Personally, I think that #4 and #5 could work well together; perhaps one solution is to not have a phylogenetic component in #5, but just use it to present time/place context? J. Spencer 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that #1 and #2 aren't really good options. Why do #2 when there are better-looking options that look more professional? Beyond that, I'm happy with any of the other versions (liked all of them, for various reasons). The one with the faunal stages and phylogenetic positions conveys the most information, but it also scares the hell out of me, because what happens when J goes on Wikibreak and we need another one made? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New {{WikiProject Dinosaurs}} image

As per my comments on the Image evaluation page you guys have, the new dinosaur skull image is hideous & has been placed there without a community consensus with the summary of "being bold, swapping img". This is all very good being bold & the such, but swapping the image on a template which affects over 1000 articles is not the place for being bold. I'm going to change back the image until a clear cut consensus is made. In any case, that particular image had almost no support, with most of the support going towards the multi-coloured dinosaur image. No doubt you know which one I'll be supporting.... Regards & happy Mother's Day. 203.184.60.35 09:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)