Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 13

Ceratosauridae

english wikipedia only counts two genera as being part of the ceratosauridae family. hoever many of the articles in other languages sugest others: Sarcosaurus and Yangchuanosaurus arer called part of this family on spainish, french, and italian wikipedia. also, spainish and italian call Chuandongocoelurus, Elaphrosaurus, and Spinostropheus as part of this family (they also both have Lukousaurus with a question mark by it). (it seems that only english and volpuk mention genyodectes.) if any of these articles have reasonalbe info to support them ( they dont cite scources) could someone let me know? thankyou,Ryan shell 01:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Preoccupied names

Hi everyone. I know for some of our articles where the name is preoccupied, we will instead use Blanketyblankosaurus (dinosaur) as the title. But this seems to be mostly when the article already exists. But what if the article doesn't exist yet? For example, I was just going through Sauropelta, which was at one time mistakenly called "Peltosaurus" even though that was already preoccupied by a (valid) genus of fossil lizard. Now I dunno how likely it is, but what if in the future there is some sort of Wikiproject Paleo-Lizards and they want to write that article? So what I did was make Peltosaurus into a sort of disambiguation page and then make a new page called Peltosaurus (dinosaur) which I had redirect to Sauropelta. I also changed the link on the List of dinosaurs. What does everyone think about this? Sheep81 11:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Your system seems to work, as long as Peltosaurus is more a placeholder article than a DAB page. I'm not sure how fair it would seem if, for example, somebody unwittingly named a new lizard Tyrannosaurus, then made Tyrannosaurus into a DAB page just to include a link to "Tyrannosaurus (lizard)" ;) Dinoguy2 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Peltosaurus is all theirs if they want it. Hopefully they will mention Sauropelta somewhere, if not we could add it in. On the off-chance any of this actually happens, of course. Sheep81 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are other articles which could go the same way. I distinctly remember last year creating an article for a genus of dinosaur whose name was preoccupied by a beetle or something, but I can't remember it now, for the life of me. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Syntarsus? Dinoguy2 00:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you calling me Elmo1234Whatevertheheckitwas? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Sheep81 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if somebody names a lizard "Tyrannosaurus," I WILL be downloading that paper in order to find out where they work, so I can pay them a little visit... ; ) Sheep81 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone naming anything "Tyrannosaurus" now would have to be living somewhere so isolated that they'd never heard of the name. I'm not even sure the jungles of the Amazon or Indonesia are isolated enough. And how many universities deep in the Amazon are granting people diplomas, anyway? ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The only other thing worthy of the name would be a giant asteroid aimed at the Earth. Sheep81 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Preoccupied ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bwahahahahahahahaha... should have guessed! How come nowhere on that page does it mention how big the thing is??? Sheep81 23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It gives the Absolute Magnitude; the Minor Planet Center has a handy conversion table to convert from Absolute Magnitude (H) to diameter (km). The table shows that Tyrannosaurus is 3-9 km in diameter. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put that in the description section on Tyrannosaurus and for a ref I'll put "Firsfron said Tyrannosaurus is 3-9kn in diameter!" Sheep81 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Firsfron is not a Reliable Source. However, NASA is. Blame NASA! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if NASA is that reliable... at least not since they faked the moon landing. :) Sheep81 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the time on the Dinosaur Mailing List where an enthusiastic first-time poster informed all and sundry that he was planning on writing a book wherein he renamed Tyrannosaurus Ultraraptor. Things like that just don't happen on the DML anymore. J. Spencer 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[1][2][3]

I remember when that was first posted... I still think it was a hoax. Sheep81 02:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We can only hope... Mgiganteus1 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that kids, the ones who've stuck with dinosaurs past the early elementary years, tend to make up their own classification systems and names. I know I did, and there have been at least a couple of editors here who have tried to promulgate their own revisions. It must be like being a young Communist or something; you read The Dinosaur Heresies for the first time, and you want to take on the world. J. Spencer 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all kids are as crazy as that though. When I was about 13 I got this crazy idea that heterodontosaurids might have been ancestral to ceratopsians. I even wrote Peter Dodson a letter about it, and he wrote me back (I still have the letter) saying that my theory was "interesting and it might even be true." :D Sheep81 02:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that was *my* idea! J. Spencer 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We should invent time travel, go back to 1993 and publish it! Sheep81 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember making up some classifications, but mostly I imagined discovering many new "species" of dinosaurs, and naming them all after myself. There was Ronoceratops, a plodding herbivore; Ronosaurus rex; etc. Good times. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Diplodocus is the front page article for the 26th

And this time, it's personal. J. Spencer 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Didn't we request that, like, six months ago? Alright, everyone ready your vandalism-reverting buttons and POV detectors the night of the 25th... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just retitle the article "Jesus Horse". Sheep81 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're lucky, I'm still waiting on Archie to be set up (Raul isn't very good anymore at keeping up with the flow of FAs coming through). Spawn Man 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

DYKS

Hi guys, I really need some quality Dino DYKs for the dino portal. Just post them here or on my talk page & don't worry if they're well known dinos or not. I've added some new pictures to the portal as well, but if there's any more really good ones out there, post them here as well. If we can get that done, I think I'll be able to nominate it for FPC (Featured Portal Candidates). Cheers, Spawn Man 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quickies:

• Did you know... that Rapetosaurus is the first titanosaur known from fossils that include both a skeleton and skull?
• Did you know... that specimens of Coelophysis thought to show cannibalism actually have the remains of other animals in their stomachs, or are lying on top of other Coelophysis individuals? [would want to spiffy up the article first]
• Did you know... that the nest of eggs that gave Oviraptor its name ("egg thief") probably were the animal's own eggs and not its meal?
• Did you know... that Monoclonius, although commonly illustrated in dinosaur books, may be an invalid name based on the remains of juveniles of other horned dinosaurs?
• Did you know... that Thescelosaurus is the best dinosaur? J. Spencer 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bwahahaha! I'm sensing some POV here. At least on that last DYK entry. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put it in an as in-joke... :) Spawn Man 03:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

K, I only need 4 more good DYKs - JS, don't worry about spiffying up the article first, as this is meant to get other editors to those pages to work on them (highly unlikely due to its subject range, but still...) Thanks again, but still need only 4 more before I'll nominate. Another FA would hurt either lol... :) Spawn Man 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• ...that Auroraceratops is named "dawn horned face" because it was an early ceratopsian, but also because the wife of one of its discoverers is named Dawn?
• ...that up to ten species of Psittacosaurus are recognized by scientists today, by far the most of any dinosaur genus?
• ...that American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope published more than 1,200 scientific papers in his lifetime?
• ...that Ekrixinatosaurus means "explosion-born lizard" because its remains were discovered using dynamite?
• ...that Heterodontosaurus was far superior to Thescelosaurus in all possible ways?

Some more so you have some options:

• ...that a Brachiosaurus skeleton is mounted in O'Hare International Airport in Chicago?
• ...that a specimen of Brachylophosaurus nicknamed 'Leonardo' was found fully articulated and wrapped in impressions of its skin?
• ...that several ankylosaur specimens have been found in marine sediments, having washed out to sea in the Cretaceous Period?
• ...that the Ischigualasto Formation in Argentina preserves many of the oldest known dinosaurs?

Hey this is kinda fun, here's some more:

• ...that Pedopenna grew long, bird-like feathers on its feet?
• ...that the K-T boundary marking the end of the dinosaur era can be seen in the Hell Creek Formation of Montana?
• ...that paleontologist Roy Chapman Andrews was one of the inspirations for the character Indiana Jones?
• ...that Therizinosaurus, meaning "scythe lizard," is named after its hand claws, which could reach up to a meter in length?
• ...that Atlascopcosaurus and Qantassaurus are two Australian dinosaurs named after businesses?
• ...that the scientific name of the armoured dinosaur Animantarx means "Armoured Citadel"?

I like this last one a lot, but you could also say:

• ...that the remains of Animantarx are radioactive and were located using a scintillation counter before they had even been exposed on the surface?

Animantarx is "living fortress" isn't it? Or... anybody know the translation given in the paper? Dinoguy2 07:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From Carpenter et al. 1999: "'Animant' Latin for 'living' and 'arx' Latin for 'fortress' or 'citadel'. The name is based on Richard Swann Lull's observation regarding ankylosaurs, that '[a]s an animated citadel, these animals must have been practically unassailable...' (Lull, 1914)"

So it should be "living" instead of "armored" but it could be either "fortress" or "citadel" and considering he was specifically referring to Lull's quote, and the quote says "citadel", that's what I went with in the article. But it really could go either way on that one since it's not specified Sheep81 07:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Page was getting a bit long, so I archived it. Feel free to add anything to the archiving subject matter. Regards, Spawn Man 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed at Ceratosauridae

An expert touch is needed for this abused article. I've done some minor clean-up, but this article needs more than that. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed a link on it... Spawn Man 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really a lot that can be done for it, as far as I know. Historically paraphyletic, now only bearly not monotypic thanks to quirks in some cladistic analysis. Basically the same situation as Coeluridae, only with even fewer studies done on it. I'll see if I can find anything useful when I get a chance. Dinoguy2 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty identical to Ceratosaurus actually. Sheep81 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

New GA!

Species of Psittacosaurus just got listed as a good article ya'll! Weeee! Sheep81 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's a very cool article. Well done, Sheep. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

...And now Saurolophus is a GA, too! Good work, J! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Sheep81 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for Deinonychus for those of you that worked on it! Sheep81 00:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture in dinosaur articles

Yesterday, user:Android Mouse started tagging articles with his bot with a "Trivia" tag. He tagged several dinosaur articles with the bot; these were automated edits with no user oversight. Subsequent discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bot_adding_.22trivia.22_template_to_articles and on the user's talk page indicates he has discontinued the practice of automatically tagging Popular Culture sections, after receiving several complaints. One user suggested, "If you disagree with an edit made by a bot, revert it." However, after this was done, two users reverted back to the tagged version. There is some discussion now on Talk:Dinosaur about the issue.

One user has suggested that the popular culture section be removed from the article, as he believes the material is trivia. However, the section doesn't read as trivia to me, and the users appear to be conflating "Popular Culture" with "Trivia". Someone on WP:AN stated that the bot tagging "may encourage people to convert trivia lists into verifiable paragraphs," but the Dinosaur article already was in paragraph form.

Removing the popular culture section doesn't seem like a good solution to me because Dinosaur is a Featured Article, which according to the criteria, are supposed to be "comprehensive"; add to this the call (by the same users) for the deletion of the Religious perspectives section. When you start deleting entire sections of articles, there's a very real chance that someone else will come along and decide the article is no longer comprehensive, and doesn't meet FA status anymore.

Further, whatever decision is made will affect many articles. If the pop culture section on Dinosaur is removed, someone is going to want it removed from Velociraptor, etc. The decision could impact all twelve featured dinosaur articles.

One other problem I forsee is that we have been told the Walking with Dinosaurs images (or other Fair Use images from films and documentaries) can only be used in a pop culture section, with commentary on the appearance. Delete the section and you can't use the image. For several non-featured articles, the only image in the article is a WWD image. And although the Imaging team has worked very hard for the past year to create many dinosaur images, there are still hundreds of articles which lack images, and some Wikipedia images are still not up to par. A WWD image is far superior to that.

Articles without images are more prone to deletion, as they help "fill out" an article, and give the reader a point of reference: something visual that text cannot provide.

I would urge everyone involved in editing dinosaur articles to weigh in, one way or the other, on Talk:Dinosaur, as this issue may well impact many Wikipedia dinosaur articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if pop culture sections are removed from individual dinosaur articles. However, it needs to stay on the main dinosaur page as the cultural effects of dinosaurs are far too significant to be relegated to a wikilink in the "See Also" section. I've rewritten and cited the section along these lines. Sheep81 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. They should stay where there is something significant to write about. If it can be converted into a reasonable paragraph or so of prose, I think it's usually worthwhile. Dinoguy2 23:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer keeping pop cult sections as long as they are in coherent cohesive paragraphs, as many of the entities in our imagination - movies, kids books etc, and furthermore being able to clarify their appearance in pop culture and how it compares with scientific knowledge. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur articles by size

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size is now automatically updated every night by a bot that the talented Android Mouse created, at my request. I believe the bot will save us a lot of work.

It works by compiling a list of articles which are in Category:Dinosaurs (or a subcategory of that category), sorting them by size, and adding them to the page. If you happen to notice articles on that page that shouldn't be on the page, they may have been added to Category:Dinosaurs. This tool will help us identify articles which obviously do not belong in that category.

If you happen to notice the bot malfunctioning or giving wonky results, please let Android Mouse know on his talk page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox question

I've just started to work through the shortest dino articles and I've noticed that there are some differences with the formatting of taxoboxes. Where they've been missing status, fossil range, and genus authority fields I've simply added them but there seem to be two different ways of displaying species information - see Tyrannosaurus and Diplodocus for an example of each. Which, if any, is preferred? Secret Squïrrel, approx 03:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you very much for working on these very short articles. As far as the taxoboxes go, I think they are different because Tyrannosaurus is monotypic (only one species) while Diplodocus has several species. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True. Though, we don't have a standard way of doing monotypic genera either. Some articles display a "Species" field in the taxobox above the binomial, others omit this. Personally I think it's a bit redundant to have both Species and Binomial, at least in short articles where there's no room to list both. You also can't really have just a species authority, can you? The species is the binomial. Maybe the Species field should be dropped, and the binomial field be re-named species, for use in pages dealing with monotypic taxa... Dinoguy2 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, guys. I thought it might have been a differentiation between monotypic and polytypic genera but, as Dinoguy2 says, it isn't consistent. I agree with Dinoguy2 that having both Species and Binomial fields (as Tyrannosaurus does) seems redundant. However, a quick check to see what other areas have done with mono-/polytypic animals shows that we are not alone; viz okapi / African elephant, and emu / cassowary. Notwithstanding how others have chosen to format their taxoboxes, my personal feeling is that there should be one format (whatever that may be). Then if a second species is named it can simply be added without having to reformat the taxobox. Can we get some consensus on this?

Oh, and you're welcome, Firsfron. I figured most people would want to work on Tyrannosaurus or Bloodihugisaurus, etc so my efforts would be better directed towards the less "Hollywood" critters. Secret Squïrrel, approx 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we would ideally stick to one format (I'd prefer just using binomial for monotypic genera), but either way, switching from monotypic to multiple species rquires a change in taxonbox format. No real way around that, since the binomial box needs to be replaced with a subdivisions box. Dinoguy2 10:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just checked Taxobox usage page--both species and binomial are given for all monotypic examples. Maybe we should stick with that format, despite my preference above, since it seems to be standard for our parent project? Dinoguy2 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done away with indenting because I'm going to need some room. I had prev looked for some info on taxoboxes in the general Help:contents area but to no avail. I have now found, read, and digested it and it seems pretty clear, but first, a couple of observations.

1. If we always used subdivisions, even for monotypic genera, we would not need to reformat the taxobox if a new species was named.
2. The rules for taxoboxes seem to have been developed with mostly extant critters in mind whereby it seems expected that there will (eventually) be an article for each species (certainly for vertebrates). Dino articles, at their most specific are only ever likely to be Generic :-) .

So the question becomes "Do we follow our parent project's rules to the letter or do we use them in a slightly modified form?" I prefer the former as it's less work for us, someone has already written the rules, it's consistent, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

If we adopt the rules as they are, there are some ramifications (aren't there always?). I count three that are relatively important. (big breath)

1. The rules say that status = fossil is deprecated in favour of fossil_range. This makes sense as to have both seems redundant and I never liked the Status tag on extinct critters (unless recently so) anyway. We should always be able to specify a fossil range so I think the Status tags should be removed. Not a high priority but something to be done as one goes along.
2. The use of binomial and binomial_authority is restricted to taxoboxes that are for individual species. Taxoboxes for higher taxa use subdivision_ranks. Since all articles about particular dinos are about genera, we should not use the binomial tag even for monotypic genera but instead simply list it as a subdivision of the genus - see example below. I am open to persuasive argument on this last point but it will need to be good!
3. When listing subdivisions or synonyms, each one should be on a separate line with the naming authority in small after it. Only if it will not all fit on one line should the authority be separated by a break to appear on the next and only then should bullets be used for readability.

As an aside, initially I thought that Diplodocus did not conform to this last point but I have changed my mind. The naming authority for D. hallorum will not all fit on the same line but to break it after the species name would look awkward, or require the authorities for the other species to be similarly formatted. Because D. hallorum takes up 2 lines, bullets are required. The synonym should prob not also be bulletted but I wouldn't worry about it - at least it matches.

Anyways (last bit), the current taxobox for Tyrannosaurus does not quite conform to these rules. This is how it should look, minus the pic:

Tyrannosaurus Temporal range: Late Cretaceous
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Sauropsida
Superorder:	Dinosauria
Order:	Saurischia
Suborder:	Theropoda
Family:	Tyrannosauridae
Genus:	Tyrannosaurus Osborn, 1905
Species
T. rex Osborn, 1905
Synonyms
Manospondylus Cope, 1892 Dynamosaurus Osborn, 1905 ?Nanotyrannus Bakker, Williams & Currie, 1988 Stygivenator Olshevsky, 1995 Dinotyrannus Olshevsky, 1995

What do people think? Secret Squïrrel, approx 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I have been doing it differently but I agree 100% with the above. The only thing I can think of is that this doesn't fully take care of species that have been moved into a new genus. An example off the top of my head:

• 'Thecodontosaurus Riley & Stutchbury 1836
• Thecodontosaurus caducus Yates 2003
• Pantydraco caducus Galton, Yates & Kermack 2007

Here the species authority would be (Yates 2003) while the binomial authority would be Galton et al 2007. Which goes in the species box? Sheep81 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Faunal stage vs. Age

I have to be pedantic and stamp my foot here:

As far as I know, we're using the International Stratigraphic Chart or, at least, we should and there one has defined Age for periods of time and Stage for rock units. Note the lack of the adjective "faunal". I do know that current Ages/Stages have the same name as some faunal stages of old but, now, by definition, they are part of an universal nomenclature (at least for Earth) and as such they shouldn't be encumbered by what are, from the start, regional qualifiers.

I grant the following snippet: "Genus species hails from the <continent/region> <pertinent name> faunal stage, which spans <pertinent age> [to <pertinent age>]".

I apologize for the annoyed tone, but while in informal conversation we can call a stratum whatever we please, an encyclopedia is supposed to have a fixed nomenclature. Dracontes 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Passion is good. Being passionate and correct is even better! We need to be clear when we are writing whether we are talking about the stratum in which a fossil was found or the time period during which the animal leaving the fossil lived. I have recently added some info to a couple of stubs and, following Firsfron's example addition on Equijubus, have been tagging [faunal stage|stage] (with 2 brackets) onto Aptian, etc. I'll double-check that I've used it correctly and fix it where needed.

On another matter - do you have any thoughts on my previous Q re taxobox formats? I realise that my suggestion that we follow the WP:Life rules and use the Subdivision tag instead of Binomial name for monotypic genera (since the article is technically about the genus) will mean that there are a heap of incorrectly formatted dino taxoboxes but I don't envisage that we'll all have to band together and trawl them fixing them up. I think it's of low enough priority that we would attend to it whenever we happen to be editing (or perhaps, passing through) an article. I, myself, am happy to adopt that task for the shortest articles as I intend to work my way through them bulking them out anyway, but I have stopped editing them since I don't want to piss people off and have a whole bunch of edits reverted. Secret Squïrrel, approx 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both topics. I'm a stickler for consistancy within wikiprojects, so I think following the example you giv for the taxobox format is the best bet. Convert em as you work on em, no big deal. Oh, but, in the T. rex example, should there not be a bullet point in the species box? Or do all the subdivisions get bullets if one section does? Dinoguy2 14:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a genus is monotypic, such as Tyrannosaurus, I think the "Binomial name" field should be used, following taxobox conventions. Mgiganteus1 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So I guess outright substitution of "faunal stage" by either "age" or "stage" is "Go!", am I right?

On the taxobox issue, my thoughts exactly, I'm all for it :-) Dracontes 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been using "stage" all along, although the only available wikilink is to faunal stage. They aren't even the same thing anymore so there really ought to be different pages. Sheep81 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, what might be a better name for a new article? Stage (Age)? Stage (Geology)? Stratigraphic Age? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole of the issue would be subsumed into Geological time scale in my honest oppinion. Perhaps another thing to add to or to start with a section on the development of it. Dracontes 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to also include a number? Now that I think of it, Campanian and Cretaceous are great for those of us who understand them, but most people will have to click through. Should we stick on rough numbers, then ("approximately 74 to 72 million years ago")? J. Spencer 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be helpful too, though I'd say, in light of the need for scientifc accuracy, I'd use the available error margin along with the numbers ( 74±1.2 to 72±0.9 million years ago). That's just me though :-) Dracontes 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Styracosaurus is a Featured Article Candidate

• Styracosaurus is up there so everbody come and look and make an opinion, point out or address problems etc. etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That was fast - it's already been accepted. J. Spencer 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird... there was only five supports, two of them from us! Not that it didn't deserve it of course. Sheep81 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We're just that good. :) Who next? Deinonychus? Herrerasaurus? J. Spencer 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that was shockingly fast. At least, I'm shocked. Arthur put a ton of work on Herrera (something like 12 hours of non-stop work on it), and I'd hate to see that go to waste. On the other hand, Deinonychus has had a lot more input (and edits) from the entire team. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the skull picture in Herrerasaurus legit? It says it's from the University of Texas, are we sure we can use it? Keep in mind that the images in featured articles are likely to be put on CDs and hard copies in the future, and are copied and moved to other sites besides Wikipedia. So it's more than just "personal education" like it says on the image page. Sheep81 02:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image is licenced under the GNU: "Copies may also be sold commercially, but if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100) then the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient." The original source is credited, with a link to the site, and attribution to the University of Texas High-Resolution X-ray Computed Tomography Facility. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the site's copyright information section, at [4], "The images may be used for the personal education of website visitors. Any commercial reproduction, redistribution, publication, or other use of the website content, by electronic means or otherwise, is prohibited unless pursuant to a written agreement signed by the copyright holder."

I interpret "personal education of website visitors" to indicate their site, not ours. Since this image is a Commons image, it seems likely it will need to be deleted. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For mine Deinonychus looks closer to being in a state to be nominated but I agree would be really great to get Herrerasaurus up. I've been pretty quiet lately WRT dinos having a fungus and bird to get up...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

...And don't think we haven't noticed. *Cracks whip* ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions from the Dinosaur FA specialists would be appreciated! TimVickers 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)