Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive September 2018 - December 2018

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs‎ | Image review

Shortcut:

WP:DINOART

Dinosaur Image Review Archives

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.

If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.

Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.

Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[6] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[7]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).

For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page:

Criteria sufficient for using an image:

  • If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria for removing an image:

  • Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
  • Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
    • Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
    • Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
    • Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
    • The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
  • Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
    • Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
    • Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
    • Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
    • Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
  • Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
    • Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
  • Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
    • Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
  • Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
    • Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
    • Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
    • Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.

Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations"[8], so they can be easily located for correction.

Click here to submit a new image for review
  1. ^ Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

Archived images in review edit

Kryptops   Done edit

  •  
    Skeletal diagram of Kryptops palaios
  •  
    Old skeletal diagram by NT
  •  
    Life restoration of Kryptops palaios
  •  
    Size chart of Kryptops palaios

I've created an updated skeletal diagram and life restoration of Kryptops based on the study by Sereno & Brusatte to replace the one by NB, as it is low detail and not especially accurate. I have scaled everything according to the paper and scaled the silhouette according to related abelisaurids, but I simply could not get my restoration to reach the 6m length that was estimated in the paper without stretching considerably. Any advice? I have also created a restoration using the modified lines of my Rajasaurus restoration from a while ago. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The life restoration seems to have a much less arched back than the skeletal? FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the illium on the life resto appears to be to elevated. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've arched the back further on the life restoration, and also uploaded a scale diagram based on the 6m estimate from the paper. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an elevated illium, should the hips as a whole be lowered? Paleocolour (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your skeletal shows Kryptops with tall sacral spines, but your life restoration shows the bulge indicating the top of the hip much closer to the top of the animal (suggesting neural spines only about half as tall). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! I have made that edit now, adding a line and shading the top of that area to emphasize it. If that is everything, I will be adding these images to the article. Paleocolour (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingwulong   Done edit

 
 

This just showed up on the Lingwulong page unreviewed, anybody see any issues? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feet look very odd and globular. Not sure about the hands. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the neck should be a bit beefier? Especially at the front end, so it flows more smoothly into the jaw. Also I'm not sure about those wrinkles on the throat, they look more like clothing folds than wrinkles... --TKWTH (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed neck and foot imperfections. Also, I would like to know how to become a participant of this WikiProject. Dennonychus 22:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess as long as you communicate with other editors of the project about how to improve stuff, you are a "member". FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The foot lifted off the ground still lacks a heel, and the ankle seems too thick. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the heel and separated the image into a head restoration and a full body restoration. Let me know if any other changes are needed, otherwise I'll re-add them to the article. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eotyrannus cranial reconstruction   Done edit

 

Eotyrannus cranial reconstruction, based on the holotype (and only) specimen. Missing elements based on Dilong, hyoid from Proceratosaurus Eotyrannu5 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems much more elongated than the reconstructions by Naish[9] and Hartman[10], any reason for that? We shouldn't veer away from the consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reconstructed using the figured material and reconstructing missing areas using known relatives. The reconstruction is entirely possible for the genus based on the material figured. Hartman's specifically is quite dubious as the scale bar presented in his skeletal is incorrect. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Darren has said that the monograph for Eotyrannus is coming out shortly so I'd wait until that is released before making judgement Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a version of the osteology, "The osteology and affinities of Eotyrannus lengi and Lower Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs from England" on the EThOS page[11] which I used to reconstruct the skull. Shows multiple views of the parts of the skull. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source is legit, but you may need to read it a little closer. For example, you show the maxilla entering the margin of the external nares, but the source leaned towards premaxilla-nasal contact disabled this. "In the absence of a premaxilla with a complete subnarial process, it cannot be determined with certainty how far caudodorsally this would have extended, nor whether it would have contacted the nasal to exclude the maxilla from participation in the external naris. The presence of a furrowed or flattened dorsorostral surface on the maxilla indicates that premaxilla-nasal contact did occur in this way" Once you account for that, the nasal bones get shifted forwards, the premaxillae curve upwards, and the skull in general becomes shortened. Did you also account for post-burial crushing with your reconstructions of the bones? Although Naish's old skeletal is quite inaccurate (he said so himself in a blog post, I think), Hartman's is good. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New version, thanks to IJried for editing the premaxilla + nasal so that they contact, and I un-crushed the nasal. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will inevitably be deemed inaccurate once the description is published, so it is kind of futile to do much with this right now, I'd say. Whatever we say here is pretty much original research, we don't know how the material will be interpreted by those who are actually physically handling it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but what I'm using here is material from an actual version of the osteology, so the only way I can see this being changed is if more material is figured or Naish adds additional comments on what the material would have looked like in life, which I can always fix relatively easily. For the time being I think the reconstruction is fine (certainly better than the current diagram on the wikipedia page) but of course I'm not one to judge.Eotyrannu5 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably fine for now, but be sure to update when the time comes! FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eocarcharia restoration from 2016 edit

 

Was looking for an Eocarcharia reconstruction on Wikimedia and found this, how accurate is it? On a side note, it seems to be an update to this reconstruction. Monsieur X (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proportions and pose seem kind of odd... Really long arms and toes, small head. FunkMonk (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eocarcharia is considered a basal Concavenator grade Carcharodontosaurid according to the most recent analyses I've seen, so this doesn't look too bad compared to the reconstructions of Concavenator, the feet do look quite big though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging TKWTH, the image's author. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd discourage you from using it, mostly because it's just a bad drawing lmao--TKWTH (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry, It's currently relegated to two non-english articles, 2008 in paleontology and the Elrhaz Formation, I also don't think there's any room on the Eocarcharia page anyway. Monsieur X (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stegosauria Size Comparisons   Done edit

I decided that thyreophorans needed some love, too. I also have an Edmontonia that will arrive soon. These aren't easy to make! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I admittedly know little about thyreophorans, these look pretty good! I'd smooth out that sharp transition below the pelvis of Huayangosaurus though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, looks like I missed three corners when smoothing out the polygonal proto-silhouette. Here's the Edmontonia. We're in desperate need of more ankylosaur size comparisons. And sorry for using the old definition of Stegosauria by adding an ankylosaur. ;) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They look to have legs that are much too long. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it might just be that these ones are standing in a more erect posture? But I'll still look into this. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huayangosaurus too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the Miragaia does as well, if only because they are so long compared to the body. Even if it matches with a skeletal shorten them as much as you can if bones are known, and make them about equal proportionally to Dacentrurus otherwise. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I edited that one too. Can I add these five to their articles? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep all good from me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scolosaurus   Done edit

 
 

I made this life restoration of Scolosaurus this morning, with the motive of fixing my rather poorly executed size comparison. I probably will color this one later. I took MWAK's ankylosaur drawing style advice from the Akainacephalus review. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did you use for reference? Ankylosaurines have been getting all sorts of specimen reshufflings recently and Scolosaurus has been in the middle of it all, so we'd better make sure this really is S. cutleri and not something else or a chimera. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to based on Paul's diagram? I that case, the body is S. cutleri and the head is Scolosaurus sp., so should be ok. But it looks kind of... Flat? And the hindlegs look unnecessarily bent. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The skull also looks kind of flat, but I may be wrong. I unbended the front hindlimb. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added color. Probably not my best job ever, but I'll let you guys decide on whether or not I should try to smooth it out. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The colour is maybe a tad too saturated? FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, along with the size comparison. Is the latter ready? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think both images look great, and seeing as all fixes have been made I'm going to add these to the article. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptops edit

 

My restoration of the early abelisaurid Kryptops. Made using MS Paint and Paint 3D, no Photoshop used whatsoever. (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you okay there buddy xD for real though, I love what you're going for but unless you took that cave photo yourself I wouldn't recommend using it for this. Get permission for that first. Also... okay, this is gonna sound mean and I'm really sorry, but I'm not sure the art quality is... professional enough for Wikipedia just yet. Don't be discouraged, go back and hone your talents a bit more. You seem to have an eye for perspective and atmosphere, but you need to work on your technical prowess and anatomy for now. Steer clear of MS Paint. See if you can get your hands on something like Photoshop, or Paint Tool SAI or FireAlpaca (which is free), it'll get you better acquainted with the digital painting 'environment'. As for anatomy, the eye should be a little smaller, get rid of the tear duct and probably the cat-like pupil too. The fenestrae shouldn't be so sunken either, and the face should be covered somewhat with a cornified or keratinous layer of integument. It was named "Covered Face" after all xD Up for debate as various restorations of Kryptops make this seem, From what I can tell the back should have a subtle arch to it, not unlike Acrocanthosaurus, but definitely not as tall. Please don't be disheartened, I see potential in you. I just don't think you've quite got the chops just yet. Keep practicing :)--TKWTH (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it is probably not the best angle to show its anatomy well, which is what we should strive for in a restoration here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I used this image for the background.(The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it should be linked in your image's source field. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Anything else? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 18:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the background cave does not match with the restored taxon. Kryptops has not been found anywhere near limestone or caves, so both of these aspects are inaccurate to the environment. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then, what would its environment have looked like? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 15:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar to a floodplain or rainforest opening onto a warm ocean. Not densely forested but with trees and beaches. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new background and made the keratin mass on the animal's head a bit easier to see. Anything else? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the article doesn't appear to have room for an additional image anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it is walking on the surface of the water? With such a simple style, it looks a bit jarring to use real photos as background, would be better to draw it, or put a filter on the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that better? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 12:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the tail needs some straightening out, it looks sort of like it was shaken forcefully. By the way, you can use colons to indent your posts, just to let you know. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And thanks for the tip.
Is there anything else? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 16:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though the neck merged straight into the torso, making the neck look incredibly thick. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made the neck a bit thinner.
Anything else? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 20:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I am very grateful for your interest and time put into making this piece for Wikipedia, I must agree with User:TKWTH. Ideally when doing life restorations you want to aim for realism, and while you have the general anatomy and perspective done well, it's the colouring and shading that is holding this particular image back. I might suggest perhaps creating lineart in black and white instead of trying to do a fully rendered image, as that seems to be your strong point. And, I do highly suggest learning to use more powerful drawing software like Photoshop, GIMP, or Paint.net, as they have dozens of features that Microsoft Paint doesn't have. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with picking up a pencil and working traditionally too. I hope to see your future work soon! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 02:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patagotitan...Again.   Done edit

 

It's been about a year since Patagotitan was described and whilst nothing new has been published it's apparent that the schematic skeletal in Carballido et al. 2017 (Fig 1) isn't particularly accurate and definitely oversized. I have been given permission by 'Randomdinos' on Deviantart to use his reconstruction. See here: [12] Even though there still are areas of uncertainty, his reconstruction is probably the best that currently exists given the available information and matches the size of the mounted specimen better than Fig 1 from the description. The new silhouette can be seen here: [13] I also update the Mammal comparison version as well. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an improvement. For those concerned, Randomdinos also has an account here, under the name Austroposeidon. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does unfortunately ruin my Mammal comparison! Which can be seen here: [14] Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cristatusaurus images   Done edit

 
 

It turns out that the Angaturama paper I needed to expand Irritator just so happened to include Kellner and Campos's description of the Cristatusaurus snout fossils, which was quite convenient I must say! Cristatusaurus is just about ready for a GA nomination once I add in the anatomical details from that paper, so here's a diagram demonstrating the ontogeny between the two fossil premaxillae, with (B) representing the younger individual. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine, as long as it looks like the fossils. Since it is based directly on another figure, it is probably best to include the full citation in the Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the final touch before I nominate for GA, I've created a skeletal diagram for Cristatusaurus, given that there's images & figures for most of the known material. I could not find any reference however for two of the other known dorsal vertebrae, so those were not included, and basing them on related genera would be misleading since I don't know what they look like or how complete they are. The tooth count on the jaw fragments is based on Taquet and Russel (1998) as well as images of the fossils. Citations for everything are on the Commons description page. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The spacing between the words in the text seems a little bit short for some reason. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the spacing of the specimen numbers, looks like it was due to some weirdness when exporting. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no comment on inaccuracy/error, I'll be placing this in the article soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irritator life restoration   Done edit

 

Here's a life restoration of Irritator's head I made a few days ago, drew it on paper and then modified it/added effects digitally. I think it would look rather nice in the Paleoecology section once it gets an extra paragraph. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intense lighting is rather obtrusive in what's supposed to be an informative restoration. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the sunlight at the tip of the snout, is that enough? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The back of the head should be convex, not concave (a common mistake made by simply following the skull shape), otherwise there are no jaw depressor muscles.[15] I think the background is a bit distracting too, like a photo taken with back light. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have rounded out/blended the back of the head and displaced the more sunlit portion of the background, does this fix either of the issues? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks better. There is a bit of weirdness with the perspective of the teeth. The way you have drawn their bases makes them look like they're flattened sideways. But not sure if you're going for lips or crocodile jaws. If the latter, you might have to draw the bases more rounded than straight. FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware spinosaurid teeth were mostly circular. I was going for squamate-like lips, which are covering the bases of the teeth somewhat. You can kinda see how the borders of the mouth appear to stretch over them. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 06:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is something strange about that underbite, though, and I can't find much info on how the teeth and jaws of spinosaurs would occlude when closing their mouths. Jaime Headden had some discussion of it here (including some on Irritator):[16] The comments are also very interesting, Andrea Cau suggests gavialid mouth tissue, so not sure about squamate lips (spinosaurs are probably the least likely theropods to have had lips, though I am guilty of also drawing half lips in some). Compared to most other illustrations, it seems your mandible there is very deep. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "half-lips" were kind of the idea, and it seems to have been accepted here before. I based my drawing on the Sales and Schultz diagram, which in turn was based on Sues et al.'s 2002 description. The lower jaw is as deep as depicted in that diagram. From looking at it I inferred that the second, third, and fourth teeth at the front of the dentary would be the ones poking out, which is consistent with most spinosaurine reconstructions I've seen (such as these[17][18]). Really most of what we have to go by is Spinosaurus, since it's the only spinosaurine with a known dentary (although it was destroyed). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's ok then. Compared to some skeletal reconstructions, it seems the eye is a bit too small compared to what the reconstructed sclerotic rings would imply. FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Enlarged the eye, also made it easier to see with some reflections, since it was a bit dark before. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to two inaccurate Nemegtosaurus reconstructions edit

  •  
    Rejected because of the armour
  •  
    Rejected because the eye was too large and fenestrae too demarcated

I've edited these two images that were rejected for being inaccurate, criticism is welcome. By the way, I based my edits to the Nemegtosaurus head on this skull recontruction. Monsieur X (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, maybe the orbit is too obliterated now in the second one, most reptiles do have visible orbits (even more than shown here). On the other hand, there is a weird line around the back of the skull surrounding the ear which is probably not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the line and also edited the eye to make it seem more reptilian, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was the wrong line! The line making the contour behind the head was fine, I meant the one that somehow breaks up the back of the head in front of the ear. This newer image by DB shows how it could look more naturally:[19] FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, this is more to your liking. Sorry I took so long, I actually went to bed when you posted your response. Monsieur X (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hind margin of the skull is still obliterated, I'll give it a try... FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full body sure looks better now. I would guess it includes the Opisthocoelicaudia postcrania based on the shape of the body and limbs, so thats a plus if the two become synonyms. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the back of the head/ear region in the way I suggested abobe, and also added back a more faint orbit outline, as again, nothing in modern reptiles precludes this. Also, I added back a skin fold on the neck, which is also well within the ordinary. We should watch out that we don't make these animals too unnaturally neat and smooth, as modern animals aren't either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better, I was honestly a bit confused as I'm not that well versed on reptile anatomy. Either way, we now have two decent Nemegtosaurus reconstructions. Monsieur X (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late Liaoningvenator edit

I've gone and put my Liaoningvenator from last year up on Commons. IIRC it didn't have a page yet when I originally did the reconstruction then I just forgot about it. Tomopteryx (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 
Reconstruction of Liaoningvenator curriei by Tom Parker, 2017.
Looks good, seems one hyper extended toe is somehow longer than the other? By extrapolating from the one on the lifted foot, I'd assume the one on the lower foot should protrude more? Anyhow, there is a weird artifact under the lifted foot that could probably need some clean up. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: foreground digit II extended, artefact removed. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and added the image to the article now, since it was otherwise barren of images. Hope y'all don't mind! Raptormimus456 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deinocheirus size comparison edit

 
Size compared to a human
 
New size comparison

The size comparison currently used on the Deinocheirus page has a very poor silhouette, with a skinny, misshapen neck that connects oddly to the head and body, a sail that's shaped oddly and is too large, utterly bizarre arms that look broken, with the closer one having to be much too short for only a claw to stick out from the body silhouette, and a tail that's possibly too long and who outline is extremely rough. The posture seems a bit odd too, but that might just be me. I'd say an entirely new silhouette is in order. Perhaps an updated size diagram with all three specimens could also be made? Not at all necessary, but it could be a nice bonus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wanted to try out this guy. I'm working on it right now, will try to finish before Wednesday. Should I add feathers to the diagram (since this taxon certainly had them)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think feathers are a good idea, remember wings and tail fan at the end! FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's why I asked! Here it is, too! I am interested in including the different specimens, but I don't know how long they were. Anyone know? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two specimens were scaled together in one of the papers figures (supplementary maybe). About the silhouette, the human needs a bit more thickening, the upper arms of the deinocheirus are too thin, the feathers on the arms are far too small (see Ornithomimus feather specimens), and the arms are probably in too drastically different of a pose. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I fixed up the arms a bit. Do they look better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The upper arms are still too thin, and the wings are too small. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Hopefully they are better now. The wing attached at the wrist, right? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, only the forearm to elbow has feathers. I do think that the more acutely angled arm should be moved backto the other, it just doesn't look like a very common pose. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rotated backwards. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a yes from me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added the 2 2013 specimens (scaled with the percentages in the article). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, added to article! FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Err, the holotype is the second largest specimen, not the largest. So there might be misscaling or mislabelling somewhere? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I realized that I didn't read it correctly (I also spelled Giganotosaurus as Gfemurganotsaurus last night - don't know how I got that...). Anyways, it's been fixed now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuojiangosaurus  Done edit

 
Tuojiangosaurus multispinus life restoration.
 
Old restoration.

I have a restoration of Tuojiangosaurus I can contribute from a few years back that could replace the current restoration. I originally uploaded it here, but I have added a little scale detail and changed the colours up. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm not sure if Tuojiangosaurus actually had shoulder spines or a four-spine thagomizer, but it probably would be better to let someone who's more read up on stegosaurs to answer that question. Going by Hartman's skeletal: [20] the tail spikes certainly need to be longer and straighter. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know either, but at least Hartman's skeletal shows those features. I wonder if IJReid might be more familiar with stegosaur anatomy, being the last person to write a FA about one (Paranthodon). FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's alright, the tail is mostly unknown, but the spikes don't look as much spikes as thinner plates. They should be more round. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've rounded the plates and added a second row in perspective to avoid it looking like there's only one row down the centre of the spine. Any other edits needed? Paleocolour (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend for you to round the tops of the plates, I was referring to how the thagomizer looks significantly longer than a cylinder would. A fix would be making them narrower or introducing more shading to show the roundness. The shoulder spike should probably be a bit farther back. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the plates still need to be sharp, too, but I'm not sure (Hartman does seem to restore them as pointy). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely misinterpreted what you were asking for! I've restored the pointed plates, and I have added a small amount of shading to the thagomizer to try and indicate that they weren't just plates. I have also moved the shoulder spike back slightly. Let me know if any other edits are needed. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 08:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodontia Size Comparison(s?) edit

 
Hypacrosaurus
 
Gryposaurus
 
Overhaul badly needed...
 
Dinoguy2's comparison
 
Camptosaurus
 
Iguanodon
 
Hypsilophodon
 
Zalmoxes
 
Dysalotosaurus
 
Tenontosaurus
 
Edmontosaurus
 
...and overhaul given!
 
Camptosaurus

I'm thinking about making a size comparison for Hadrosauridae, containing these five taxa:

  • Parasaurolophus walkeri
  • Hypacrosaurus stebingeri
  • Gryposaurus monumentensis
  • Saurolophus osborni
  • Edmontosaurus regalis or maybe E. annectans?

I already have size charts for some of these guys, but I have some questions. First, would it be okay to illustrate all of these animals with dewlaps or would that be too speculative? Second, which of these animals should have feature scales? Third, which should have a skin ridge running down their backs? Fourth, which species of Edmontosaurus should I use? Fifth, is this collection satisfactory, or should I add more? I'm also open to additional input and opinions. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post my existing silhouettes of these guys to the side. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this list is, with the exception of Edmontosaurus, composed all of animals that are of generally very similar sizes. I think representing the diversity of the family would be better. Perhaps a list along the lines of: Hypacrosaurus (either species, alternatively C. casuarius or L. lambei), Telmatosaurus transsylvanicus, Saurolophus osborni (or Gryposaurus monumentensis), Magnapaulia laticaudus, and Edmontosaurus annectens (or Shantungosaurus giganteus). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we actually do have a hadrosaurid scale chart, which, strangely enough, does not appear in the hadrosaur article but does appear in many other articles. I do see some errors here, like the crestless E. regalis, but that seems to be a pretty easy fix.
Because of this, I'm thinking of diverting the subject of this scale chart to Iguanodontia and some of its subgroupings. It may still be nice to have a chart for small hadrosaurs, but I'll let others decide on that matter. So now I'm thinking of these guys:
Any additional input/requests? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the existing size chart also ignores the 15m E. annectens specimens. Anyway, a chart for Iguanodontia sounds nice, and that taxon sampling generally seems good. The question of which rhabdodontomorph to use is important, given they're all completely different sizes (a size-chart for the group would be great, come to think of it). Since there's so few non-iguanodontians these days, it would be easy to just make it a chart for Ornithopoda in general, but there's no good candidate among all two solid basal ornithopods. We could throw in Hypsilophodon and just note its uncertain position in the captions, I guess? Anyways, yes, some sort of hadrosaur would be a good idea to throw in. Perhaps Shantungosaurus, to show the extremes of Ornithopoda? That doesn't represent the family in general well, though, and seven taxa would be too crowded. Alternatively, we could leave out (definite) hadrosauroids altogether and just throw in Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis, but I think that'd be better saved for a different size chart (probably I. bernissartensis, M. atherfieldensis, Barilium dawsoni, Hypselospinus fittoni, and Ouranosaurus nigeriensis), and I again like the idea of showing all of Iguanodontia. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few silhouettes... I'll go for Zalmoxes robustus since that's what Scott Hartman has. Does anyone know of any Dryosaurus or Tenontosaurus skeletals online? Worst comes to worst, I'll just modify the proportions of my Camptosaurus to fit these guys, similar to how I made my most recent "prosauropod" size charts. I might fine-tune my two non-hadrosaurid ornithopod silhouettes a bit. Also, is the Campto's knee hyperextended? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my Zalmoxes for Rhabdodontidae. Thoughts/Comments/Corrections? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Tenontosaurus, there's one on Deviantart but in general no, it's really bad for skeletals. It should be fine in either a quadrupedal or bipedal stance, so long as it's in a walking or standing pose. Dryosaurus seems to be even worse, though Wikipedia has some great images of mounts of both it and Dysalotosaurus.Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a Dysalotosaurus: [21], but something seems to be a little off with it. Not sure what. Input? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's what you're seeing, but I'm not seeing much of a digit one there. Anyway, apparently GSP actually totally does have a skeletal, contra what I said above. The torso and neck seem just seem just a tab bit longer in his. Otherwise, everything looks fine. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he has a lot of them, but unlike Hartman, he has no easily usable online gallery. He also has a Tenontosaurus, which will be my reference for the final ornithopod needed. I think I can handle just eyeballing it from the book, but feel free to post a link if you can find it online. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The updated Dysalotosaurus can be seen on the right, based on Paul's skeletal but with some added flesh. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on it? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was still waiting for the approval of the Dysalotosaurus and Tenontosaurus. But yeah, I probably will finish it this week. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Dysalotosaurus looks fine to me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Tenontosaurus! Unless you want a hadrosaur to be included (probably Edmontosaurus), this is the last one. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hallux on the forward extended foot seems noticeably significantly larger than the one on the other leg. I'd say the latter has a better-looking size. Additionally, the hand on the ground looks fully pronated, which it shouldn't be (ornithopods could only partially pronate). Regarding Edmontosaurus, it'd be a great addition if it can be fit in well. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated Tenontosaurus and added Edmontosaurus. The hand wasn't pronated (see life restoration section below), but that's hard to discern in silhouette form, so I changed it. Is the duckbill okay? Once it's confirmed to be accurate I'll add some soft-tissue features (comb, dewlap, feature scales). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any pressing issues. My one bit of feedback would be to keep practicing with feet, a lot of them, especially Camptosaurus' back one, look very boxy, and the claws are all sharp and curved. Ornithopods, not being predators, wouldn't have had these sharp, theropod-like claws, it's one of the best traits for distinguishing their tracks. This isn't a pressing issue though, so for now you're fine to move forward. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Campto's old, very old, predates my second style of size compariosns. I have have updated my Edmontosaurus. I hope I did the soft tissue stuff corectly. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the crest is supposed to be quite that long and swept back. Most reconstructions of it I've seen are more restricted and perhaps a tad smaller. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (hopefully). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the finished diagram, Lusotitan! It took quite a while, but hey, it's finally here, and I've turned one of my older images into something useful! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here's my Camptosaurus size comparison from a section below. Since it's relevant to this section, I'll post it here in the hopes of it getting a better review here. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram looks mostly good, but there's a few size adjustments needed. The Edmontosaurus is within published estimates, but it's at the very top of them, whereas everything else here is using the very low end of their estimates. More consistency is needed here, I think it's safer to cut off of a metre or so from it to be more in line. On the other end of the spectrum, Iguanodon and Tenontosaurus are pushing their luck as low end estimates, a additional metre on both (maybe even a bit more for Tenontosaurus) would help IMO. That said, Tenontosaurus' article give no source for its size estimates, so looking further into things might be useful. Camptosaurus is the problematic one, since the estimates vary by so much. This is the very bottom end, but the recent paper by Carpenter and Galton seems to agree with numbers closer to that based on fig. 19, so I think it's fine as is. Dysalotosauurs and Zalmoxes looks perfect. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed Tenontosaurus to Holtz's 7 meter estimate in his 2012 appendix, shrank Edmontosaurus, grew Iguanodon, and stopped Dysalotosaurus and Zalmoxes from levitating. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'll put it on relevant pages, and I'm going to get rid of the Shatungosaurus/Magnapaulia/Edmontosaurus one on all its pages, it's beyond help. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this probably is my most useful image yet! Makes a great poster, too: [22]! Just my Scolosaurus below and all of my old size comparisons can be updated and fixed! Looking back into the history of the largest ornithopod image, here's and older version: [23] I could also try to make something like this, if you wish. I have workable silhouettes for most of those taxa. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that sounds great. The taxa sampling is pretty solid, though Iguanodon looks a bit out of place. We could sub in Saurolophus angustirostris, or we could keep I. bernissartensis as an example of a (slightly) smaller, more basal taxon for comparison. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigilmassasaurus edit

It's been a while since I did a proper full restoration for an article so I'll get to working on my Sigilmassasaurus pretty soon, here's some very preliminary sketches/ideas.[24] (Ignore the crappy anatomy :P) but it generally illustrates what I'm gonna go for, FunkMonk suggested a generic spinosaurid with the shape of the neck dictated by the reconstruction in the PeerJ study so that's what I'm going for. But I'm wondering, does the Arden et al. paper change anything or should I stick with that plan? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've done a good deal of reshuffling specimens it seems, I'm not sure on what basis. The Spinosaurus/Sigilmassasaurus situation seems like a total mess right now, so I wouldn't personally touch either of them. But I guess you can just follow whatever the new paper says, but I'm sure it'll be refuted by the next paper. FunkMonk (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More fuel to the Spinosaurus fire:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Size Comparisons edit

I have created these two size comparisons. I plan to make more, including Ornitholestes, Camptosaurus, Uteodon, Haplocanthosaurus, and Dryosaurus. Are these two accurate? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They look alright but the Marshosaurus' rear leg pose looks odd. Can't place it though. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Tanycolagreus looks a bit thin for an animal which likely would have been covered in fluff. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more flesh to the neck, arms, and belly on the Tanycolagreus. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel(talk | contribs) 11:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the pose of the Marshosaurus' rear leg. Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saurophaganax decided to rip all sense of following to-do lists to shreds... anyways, is this accurate? Should I use both estimates or just pick one and stick with it? And am I even displaying these estimates correctly? Are the necks too long and weird? Are the Saurophaganax proportionately correct? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give the largest Saurophaganax size estimate a darker color, right now it is barely visible. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that once I'm sure that the silhouettes are accurate. It'll probably become green. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recolored and re-scaled the Sauros and fixed the neck. Thoughts? Oh, and FunkMonk, I finally got around to editing my human. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camptosaurus is going backwards for a little variety. Is Paul's estimate okay or should I make it bigger? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Size Comparison From Commons edit

 
ver18-He

I just found this image by MathKnight on Commons. Some of those silhouettes look pretty familiar! Anyways, is this image accurate? Steveoc 86, Dinoguy2, and PaleoGeekSquared also made some of the silhouettes that are used in this image. I am dubious about some estimates, such as a 35m Puertasaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shantungosaurus weight should be giving a range like the others (published estimates seem to land around 13 tonnes based on the more recent literature), and its silhouette is very weird and craggly. Styracosaurus is a very bizarre inclusion when everything else is a sort of "biggest in group" contender. The text in some other language would obviously need removing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The text is in Hebrew, so it was probably meant for "local consumption", but in that case, it would be better to simply have two separate versions. Seems very arbitrary to have a diagram with dual English and Hebrew text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Styracosaurus probably should be replaced with Ankylosaurus for more thyreophoran diversity. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
ver20-En

I considered your comments and made an English/international version. I uploaded the SVG file to commons: File:Biggest-Dinosaurs-ver19-en.svg. I hope it is better and useful. MathKnight 20:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded File:Biggest-Dinosaurs-ver20-en.svg. The main change is adding Argentinosaurus in the upper diagram to compare it to the other dinosaurs (thus the scale legend moved to the bottom). Triceratops silhouette was set at 8.5 meters (e.g. "Yoshi's Trike" at the Museum of the Rockies). Apatosaurus neck was streighten and made to be less curved. Shantungosaurus color was brightened. MathKnight 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to use Yoshi's Trike, then you should change the Trike silhouette to match the proportions of that specimen. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only use of Yoshi's Trike is to show that there existed a 8.5 meters (28 ft) Triceratops. I don't have its silhouette so I used what I have, which is good enough IMHO. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we add it to Dinosaurs and Dinosaur size articles? MathKnight 19:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel, I updated the illustration with the new silhouettes of Apatosaurus, Spinosaurus and Sauroposeidon. I hope it is good now. MathKnight 18:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems like Steve's about to update his Patagotitan, so it doesn't seem to be done just yet, although it is coming along nicely. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like some of these have been scaled to image/silhouette length as opposed to known bone measurements or along the curve of vertebral column. The T.rex is near 13m long but posed with strong curves along the tail resulting in it being too large, over 4m tall at the hips for example, which isn't known in any T.rex specimen to my knowledge.
Even though all Alamosaurus reconstructions are composites (and all the issues that come with that) I don't think anyone has restored it that large. Hartman's restoration of the large tibia is the largest restoration of Alamosaurus that I know of; he restores it as larger than the BIBE cervical series. That said, I personally don't think we should scale our Wikipedia size charts to the tibia specimen. The cervical series is more verifiable because there are reconstructions online, a scientific paper with a reconstruction, and there is a museum mount. I'm also sceptical of Argentinosaurus but I haven't had time to properly check it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenontosaurus Life Restoration edit

 
 

I have created this image of Tenontosaurus based on Paul (2016) to assist me with my iguanodont size comparison that I plan to make. I have given it very scant protofeathers, with the idea that they would be for display. I will color it and add texture once it passes for accuracy. Comments/suggestions? I also am posting NT's restoration of this dinosaur, because it appears to have pronated hands. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the old one was fine, it seems hadrosaurs and their relatives had almost backwards facing palms without having to pronate their wrists. See some of the figures here:[26] The hind limbs on the new image seem very unbalanced now, it would not be able to support its weight with two flexed ankles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ankles are updated. Ornithopod osteology is weirder than I thought. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The foot claws shouldn't be as sharp as they are, at least on the further foot. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I blunted them a bit. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What species is depicted? Since we already have a restoration of one specie,s this could be useful as a restoration of the other. Of course, if modified accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is T. tilleti. I would be interested in altering this image and uploading it as a new file to represent T. dossi. I still will need the more complete T. tilleti for the size comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coelophysis (ghostly) size comparison and other stuff edit

 
 

Here's a Coelophysis size comparison to go with my topology chart. I planned to do this awhile ago, but after the Cedarosaurus section from above, I couldn't resist the temptation of this... or this... anyways, I created the C. rhodesiensis by editing my C. bauri, eyeballing the differences between the two reconstructions in Paul's 2016 field guide. Is this acceptable? Also, I put (=Syntarsus) in the labels, but it might be better to remove that for simplicity. Additionally, I wanted to confirm that the topology chart has been accepted down here, since the original section's more or less disappeared in the image review equivalent of a geological upheaval. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a pretty good chance that Coelophysis will end up monotypic, so not sure if it's a good idea to include two species? Why not kayentakatae then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that someone would ask that question... I just used C. bauri and C. rhodesiensis because they're known from complete skeletons, whereas C. kayentakae is not. However, it probably should be included for completeness. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Including both species shouldn't be a problem, it'd just a matter of changing the text in the image and two captions if the consensus became to split it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subnarial gap edit

 

I was browsing through the dino glossary WIP, and discovered that the subnarial gap entry probably could use an image, so here is the one that I made, using Baryonyx. Is it acceptable? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably be more useful if you could add Dilophosaurus and Coelophysis as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but add some genus or family names, maybe? I think it would illustrate the concept better if the premaxillae and maxillae were demarcated (they are what forms this gap, after all), and perhaps the tooth sockets. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with actual bones. I tried to use actual pictures of the fossils whenever I could, Coelophysis being the problem (its skull was crushed and a little distorted). Does this look better. The maxilla on the first two animals is long, so I decided to trim them for spacial aesthetics (and because that's how far the Baryonyx image went :P). Is it ready for the glossary? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. WOuld look more pleasing to the eye if you moved the family name below the genus name in all of them, not only the last one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaur ecology restorations edit

  •  
    Less visible fenestrae. (Not sure if the right hand is pronated?)
  •  
    Less visible fenestrae, smoothed out overly spiky sails, added more neck musculature
  •  
    Fixed pronated hands and added more neck musculature
  •  
    We can't let Spinosaurus have all the fun, can we?
  •  
    Skull features should be less visible and the neck a little less skinny   Done
  •  
    Skull shape is very wrong, even has a baryonychine jaw that looks nothing like the holotype dentary. Partially pronated hands, tail of foreground spino too skinny.

Here are three reconstructions of spinosaurids in their environment, picked out from ABelov 2014's gallery. I thought they could come in handy while I continue to expand spinosaurid articles so I did some fixes to them (listed in captions). The first one would be used in Suchomimus once it gets a palaeoecology section, while the last two (which were drawn to represent Suchomimus and Irritator) could potentially have other uses. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly look better than the originals, but I do think the first one has a pronated hand (same can be said for the animal image in the second image, but it is less visible). Will maybe be hard to draw a new hand, but a workaround could be to move it and make it seem like the arm is just lifted a bit (so that the palm is rotated that way instead of by pronation)... But it will probably b just as hard... FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure there is pronation in the second image? The hands seem to be facing each other to me, but then again you did say it wasn't as visible. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok on second look, it could seem like the third claw on its far hand is within the same dark blob as the first claw, so it could be interpreted as the hands facing each other. If that makes any sense, hehe... But the first image might need some work. Also make sure that the proportions of the head and bodies match reliable skeletals, some of ABelov's dinosaurs can be a bit wonky at times... He also does the common mistake of making the back of the jaw joint "spiky", whereas the entire back of the head should look rounded due to jaw musculature. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell for the first image, but the hand does look pronated. In the second the skull looks too flattened, I don't think it matches with the known skull. In the third, the leftmost individual has a very odd supinated? hand, which is also not possible. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second one should be fine, Since known Baryonychines had very thin skulls[27][28], you can see it better from the rightmost individual in that image, that's facing its head less laterally. You're right about the third drawing though.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The skull of the left spinosaur in the second image has a concave snout. That's not like in any spinosaurs, the snout being lower in height in the middle than at either end, and it looks inaccurate. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is somewhat related to the current topic, so I thought that I'd bring it up here. Last month, I drew a swimming Suchomimus: [29]. I'll upload it if you guys think that it could be useful (we already do have a large number of Suchomimus life restorations). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good I can't say much but the head looks a bit flat in the middle. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No room in the article for it at the moment (unless we replaced one restoration since there's two of it standing), but having a good swimming one is useful, could definitely be put to use in the future.
I went ahead and uploaded it, after making the head a little more like the skull. Is this better than before? Perhaps this might be useful for the Paleobiology section? Also, does the musculature on DiBgd's Suchomimus look kind of strange to you guys, too? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that line around the base of the arm... FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about DB's image or mine? (I assume that you're referring to BD's as the base of the arm isn't really visible on mine, but I want to be sure.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant the first image shown here, haha... But both images have that issue. There does not seem to be a deltoid muscle? As for DBogdanov's image, the way the hindleg attaches is really weird. It is like the thigh stops before reaching the hip. Not that there has to be a line all the way up, but it somehow rounds off halfway, almost looking like a human thigh... FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded Abelov's new Spinosaurus, as well as another free restoration from a recent paper by Candeiro et al. - Some inaccuracies I noted are listed in the captions, perhaps Monsieur_X or Paleocolour might be interested in fixing these up? If so, the inaccuracies with the first two images are noted here as well (I'll correct the supinated hand in #3). The first Suchomimus image has a pronated right hand, and the second should be modified so the two animal's skulls actually resemble Suchomimus[31], since right now they look more-or-less like JP3 Spinosaurus. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the perspective of the snout tip in the last image doesn't really make sense either... FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Underwater Spinosaurus ecology image with the edits asked for. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 02:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I wonder if the Spinosaurus should have flatter foot claws, as well as a longer hallux, per this[32] foot, which is also figured in the 2014 paper. By the way, the two fish in the lower right look more like bichirs (most likely Bawitius) than Ceratodus, the one on the lower left does look like Ceratodus, however... FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! Updated the image caption. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
Model in NHM
  • Now we're on this subject, how do people feel about this animatronic Baryonyx in London? It has been in the article for ages, but I have sometimes wondered if it is too bulky, and if the proportions are otherwise correct. It doesn't have pronated hands, which is a huge plus for a model of that age (other models there seem to be much worse). FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe PaleoGeekSquared has a comment? FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it appears to be based off of Charig and Milner's 1997 skeletal[33], which definitely restores the skeleton much more robustly than Hartman's more modern take[34]. In particular, the back of the skull is a lot deeper, probably due to the orbit and laterotemporal fenestra being much larger than in later reconstructions. The mandible is also very upturned in general, making it look like only the tips of the jaws (or "terminal rosette") would make contact when closing its mouth, in comparison to the more uniform look in Hartman's skeletal. Interestingly, this restoration of the skull[35] used in the article was probably made after the description of Suchomimus was published, given that it was only after that that we realized the skull of Baryonyx was likely just as long and low as in Suchomimus.
The neck also lacks the S-curve that was later realised in Evers et al. (2015)'s reappraisal of Sigilmassasaurus, which is even stated in the article itself: The neck formed a straighter S shape typical of theropods) than that seen in other theropods; in fact, the neck was initially thought to lack the S curve. The last major difference I see is in the chest region - the shoulders are set much lower and further forwards in Charig and Milner's skeletal, resulting in the body being very barrel-shaped, in contrast to the more or less triangular form seen in both Hartman and Headden's skeletals[36]. So in conclusion: the animatronic is inaccurate, at least according to modern interpretations. It'd be a shame to lose such a useful image, but a restoration with the same anatomy seen in this model would certainly not pass through review here. Perhaps it could be noted in the caption that it's a historical reconstruction? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's along the lines of what I was thinking myself. Since we have one other restoration of Baryonyx with a fish (NT's), I don't think the image is that necessary, so I'll replace it. The neck could probably be explained by it being stretched out, it wouldn't always be stuck in an S curve anyway... As for the reconstructed skull, I think it's just the perspective that makes it look lower (seems all Baryonyx reconstructions are based on the same sculpt?), but since it isn't entirely clear what's going on, the image should be fine. That said, I wish we could get a photo of a mount like this for the taxobox:[37] FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a sweet-looking mount! Shame we're stuck with the rather awkward and hunched over one from the NHM... The one you linked to also seems to be one of the few if not the only modern Baryonyx skeletal mount there is as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a fairly good one at the Toulouse Museum[38], and I have asked someone on Commons to take a photo of it, but nothing yet... FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eoraptor size comparison edit

 
 

Hello everyone, I found this in the Eoraptor article, but it has a few problems, such as pronated hands, bad pose for a size comparison, and, most importantly, is a rip-off of the image on page 44 in this book: [39]. If this must be deleted, then I have a size comparison of my own that's based on Hartman's skeletal and is not a copyvio. With a few alterations it should be ready for WP, and I will upload it shortly. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made the alterations but using Hartman's 20cm scale bar by duplicating it until I got 1m, but the animal comes out at more than 2 meters! Help?! (This sure seems to be happening a lot for me as of late.) And by the way, while browsing through a public library, I came across a book the labeled Conty's Eoraptor life restoration as "Compsognathus fossil." Not sure if credit was given... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I measured some of the skeletal elements in Hartman's reconstruction using his 20 cm scale bar and compared them to the official measurements of the holotype from Sereno et al. (2013)[40], and it does appear that Hartman's scale bar is incorrect and oversizes the animal. I was hoping it was simply a typo and intended to be a 10 cm scale bar, but unfortunately it doesn't appear to be as simple as that, although it comes close. Would it be possible to try scaling your diagram from the paper's measurements instead? DrawingDinosaurs (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is the image here a rip-off, or did someone else just use it in a book? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The book features a life restoration that is (c) 2002. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it should be nominated for deletion, or the silhouette simply replaced (best option, since many projects use the image). I did that with the Heterodontosaurus size comparison, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How's this silhouette? By the way, I could make a loooooooong list of Wp files that have been ripped off or just not credited by books. Want me to post it somewhere? Also, I've been looking around, and many of Dropzink's size comparisons seem to be ripoffs of something. Also, should I keep the size or increase it to 1.7 meters? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... the source says its based on another image, but that image seems to be traced over the image in the book, but I'm not sure, but I don't know the license on that image either. Help? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dicraeosaurid size comparison edit

 

This scale diagram ought to be updated to include Suuwassea and Lingwulong, because Lingwulong is now the most complete pre-Kimmeridgian dicraeosaurid.Extrapolaris (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I think there is little chance of adding those to this particular image, but another one could of course be made. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a Suuwassea size comparison sometime soon. I would be willing to take on this project. Are there any good skeletals of Suuwassea, Dicraeosaurus, or Brachytrachelopan online? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a pretty nice Brachytrachelopan skeletal here.--TKWTH (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly shorten the tail of the Brachytrachelopan, but that skeletal is fairly rigorous. If the point is a Dicraeosaurid diagram then Pilmatueia should also be included if possible. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I currently have Lingwulong at 20m, Amargasaurus at 14m, and Brachytrachelopan at 12m (tailed scaled to match proportions in Hartman's Amargasaurus). These all seem too big... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Lingwulong skeletal in the article includes a 1m scale bar, and that doesn't seem anywhere near 20 m Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lingwulong gets pretty close to 20 m following the skeletal, because of the tail bend. But it might be best if that skeletal is used and the tail straightened to see the size that it has exactly. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a relief to know that I actually did scale something right. Everything that I've been drawing lately (Stokesosaurus , Eoraptor, Coelurus, etc.) seems to be coming out at least half a meter too big. So, currently using Paul's estimates, the other two are only 1 meter too long. Should I just remove 1 meter of length from the tail and call it okay? I still need a Suuwasswa skeletal. I'll take a risk and eyeball Dicraeo from Paul's book. Should I use one or both species? And what should be done for Pilmatueia? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Lingwulong might still be oversided I'm not sure. I actually happen to have a semi-Suuwassea skeletal (used Dicraeo body but Suuwassea neck) I'll try and get it in a way you can see it and use it. I also modified it to make Dystrophaeus if you want that one too. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aLo69egvfE8k3zP39DLUPn6PKu9TrCGG/view?usp=sharing I hope this works, you might have to download the image for it to show. Uses the vertebrae of Suuwassea and the remainder is Wilsons Dicraeosaurus. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can see it, but it seems to make Suuwassea come out at 22 meters using the current body, and 21 meters when I shorten the body. Paul only gives and estimate of 15 meters. How long is the scale bar? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh the scale bar probably is for Dystrophaeus not Suuwassea. 15 m is about right for Suuwassea. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also link Dystrophaeus? I'll go ahead and shrink Suuwassea. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Foster and colleagues are working on a redescription of Dystrophaeus based on newly discovered material collected at the holotype locality in Utah, so Dystrophaeus could end up as a non-diplodocoid eusauropod. Extrapolaris (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Editors will cross that bridge when they get to it! 75.156.69.248 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caenagnathid skeletal restorations edit

 
Caenagnathid skeletons to scale

The skeletal restoration diagram should be updated to incorporate the newly described taxa Apatoraptor and Anomalipes, but also reflect the erection of Anzu wyliei for the Hell Creek caenagnathid. It should take into account newly described material for Elmisaurus rarus by Currie et al. (2016), and recent opinion that Caenagnathus and Chirostenotes are distinct taxa.Extrapolaris (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Well, these were made by Jaime Headden at a specific time when those weren't described. If anyone should alter it, it should be him, I don't think anyone else would be able to mimic his style, and it would look mismatched. Anyhow, is anything anatomically wrong with the image? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avimimus skull restoration edit

 
Skull diagram of A. nemegtensis

The skull restoration of Avimimus is for A. nemegtensis and should include a restoration of skull bones for A. portenosus because Funston et al. (2018) restrict portenosus to the material housed at the PIN in Moscow and the nemegtensis material is housed at the MPC-D in Mongolia.Extrapolaris (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I'm not sure what the issue is, are you saying the image should be relabelled or is inaccurate, or that a new image should be made? FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image should be relabeled Avimimus nemegtensis because the material used in the diagram is for that species, and the A. portenosus material is not used in the diagram.Extrapolaris (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Oviraptorid profiles edit

 
Oviraptorid profiles

The diagram identification key should be updated and replaced with a new one to reflect that Ingenia yanshini was renamed Ajancingenia yanshini by Easter (2013), although Funston et al. (2018) view Ajancingenia as a synonym of Heyuannia. The oviraptorids from the Nanxiong Formation should also be included.Extrapolaris (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

That renaming still seems to be controversial, so better not to jump the gun. Also unless Dinoguy2 wants to add more taxa to the image, it's probably best to let it stay as it is. Such images could otherwise be updated for eternity as taxa are described, which I don't think anyone is going to do. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request: sauropod nostril position diagram edit

 
Giraffatitan skull matching the angle seen in Witmer 2001 which could be traced for the diagram

After some discussion at the Brachiosaurus GAN, it seems we might want to make a diagram reflecting the work of Witmer, based on figure 1 in this[41] 2001 paper. I was going to make it myself, but since I'm not so good at making neat diagrams, I thought a request here would be better. I found a photo of a Giraffatitan skull that is from almost the same angle as that in the paper, which could be used to trace after. Such an image could be used in many articles, and would be much better than the old diagram we had.[42] FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing around in Inkscape and created this: [43] Would this work for the diagram or would it be better to jut trace over the skull? It's based on Hartman's skeletal, as usual. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to be as close to the literature as possible, also, the top view makes it easier to show where in the opening the nostril placements are. We want to show the various features described in the text, such as the nasal fossa and so on. Also, all that neck is only distracting the focus away. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbosaurus image review edit

 

This image has quite a history and seems well made to me, but it does need review. It's derived from a Tarbosaurus size chart published by Steveoc86. While the chart did technically get reviewed way back in 2007, it's gone through a lot of changes. The old version definitely wouldn't be acceptable today, but the newer version (last edited August 2017) seems to be quite accurate. In fact, I'd personally say that it's the best tyrannosaur illustration on the site. A lot of his other work (seen on his commons page) can probably also be discussed. What's everyone else's analysis? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of Steve's uploaded work has been reviewed here as far as I know (the files aren't always thumbed here, though, which is why you can't always find links to here from them). But yeah, that particular image could be updated with his more recent version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was saying. This is the more recent version (or at least it's derived from it). I thought that it deserved a review since by this point the 2007 version is so different that it's basically a different image. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I'm pretty sure his newer version was reviewed somewhere too, or perhaps I am confusing it with his Daspletosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where his feathered version was briefly reviewed:[44] FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A while back I updated my tyrannosaur heads based on what was described for Daspletosaurus horneri. Mark Witton has gone further, see here: [45] (he's also created a poster for SVPCA which is currently available on his patreon) so I'll review them at some point to incorporate some of that information. I also reduced the feathering based on tyrannosaur skin descriptions by Bell et al. 2017. Whilst the skin impressions are small and sparse, they imply a mostly scaly covering. Only the top of the back is completely unknown. Some artist online have questioned whether these are truly scales but a specimen of Albertosaurus preserves 'feature scales' on the abdomen which makes me suspect that the impressions do in fact represent scales. I also need to update the image description and refs at some point. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to do it, why not. I don't think the hands are that noticeable, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I left the little spot of light in because it wasn't too off-putting (besides, it created a better sense of depth), but I did scrub the background. I also painted out the pronated hands, because even if they are hard to see, they're still inaccurate. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Speaking of Tarbosaurus images, the following never got detailed reviews, though they all seem to have a couple of issues:
  •  
    The ear hole seens to be in an odd position.
  •  
    Though I did some editing, the fenestrae still seem sunken.
  •  
    Very long teeth, those in the lower jaw seem tilted too much backwards.
  •  
    The back of the head and fenestrae look weird. The claws on the feet look off in both size and perspective.

I don't think this means they should necessarily be removed frõm the articles, but they could need some further editing. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 
The scale diagram in the article also could use a little love. The postcranium is identical to Tyrannosaurus, and it's a low res png. I could create a new diagram to better show Tarbosaurus' ontogeny, if I can find skeletals of "Gorgosaurus lancinator" and "G. novojilovi". Jaime Headden's "Shanshanosaurus" is in the article, and Franoys has both T. bataar and T. "efremovi": [46]. In, all of Dinoguy2's tyrannosaurids have identical postcrania, so all of these size comparisons could use an update. I have created a Gorgosaurus size comparison, so I can upload that one, too, if it's desired. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tyranno and Tarbo are mainly distinguishable by skull features, though, so having the same body isn't really inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But wourboldn't it be better to show more Tarbo specimens like here: [47]? Sorry about the absence of the "Gorgo" specimens, still need to draw those based on Paul. The rest are based on Franoys and Qilong. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and expanded Spinosauridae size comparison edit

 
Current diagram
 
Proposed diagram

Now that I've gotten neck-deep in researching spinosaurids, I decided to make a new version of my previous size comparison, since I realized some aspects of it could use some improvement. Differences from the previous one are listed:

  • Changes to Spinosaurus: Various fixes to the skull and teeth, the previous head looked off. Given it the more sailfish-like rectangular sail theorized in 2014. Generally the anatomy should now fit the new reconstructions better. Used 15 m size estimate instead of 14.5 m.
  • Changes to Suchomimus: Not much really, besides smoothing out the silhouette, it's still based on Hartman.
  • Changes to Baryonyx: Still based on Hartman's 2018 skeletal, the prominent coracoid is now more visible, probably due to the dewlap being pushed up.
  • Added Ichthyovenator: Besides the skull, its postcranial remains are about as well known as Irritator/Angaturama's, so I added it in, using Paul's 8.5 m estimate.
  • Changes to Irritator: The previous silhouette was a bit ugly/hunched over, so I remade it using the mount at the Museu Nacional as a reference, and gave it the crest depicted in that mount as well as this PLOS ONE paper.[48] Used a 7m size estimate in the middle of its proposed range of 6m to 8m.
  • Changes to all: Less lumpy, more bird-like feet. Fixed deformed/missing teeth on all silhouettes. Dorsal spines now more consistent. Mouths now less open and arms pulled backwards. More gracile tails. As a bonus, I changed the silhouette to Ernst Stromer, thought It'd be more fitting.

What are your guys thoughts on these changes? (Ignore that I made Spinosaurus's neck a tad too long, that will be fixed later) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, especially the spacing, but to my admittedly colour deficient eyes, it is a bit hard to discern the border between the leftmost and third, dark animals. Perhaps keep the darkest colours farthest apart. Perhaps the red and green can be swapped? FunkMonk (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Oxalaia could be snuck in? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately kept it out because its size estimate is a lot more tentative than these five, which are the best known spinosaurids from postcranial remains (not counting the undescribed Thailand skeleton). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, nevermind; Spinosaurus's neck is the right length, its that one realizes how long it is when its not curved up in its usual "pelican" pose. I also tried swapping the colors you told me, Funkmonk, but that just makes the Baryonyx harder to see since the green blends in with the blue of Suchomimus too much. I'll try experimenting with different colors. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I brightened the Baryonyx, does this help? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also made individual images for Suchomimus, Baryonyx, Ichthyovenator, and Irritator and put them up on their respective articles, keeping the larger size chart for the family-level one; as seen in Pterygotidae, Tyrannosauridae, and Abelisauridae. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I don't see how it is an improvement to replace the family comparison images on genus articles, though. It isn't exactly a bad thing to be able to compare with relatives. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll place them all back then. I was mainly following precedence, but perhaps that's not always such a good idea... Like lips not being the default in prehistoric animal restorations. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, both are just due to coincidence. There had never been any discussion about either (until now). FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With Pterygotidae, it was to display the difference between the species in each genus (as only Ciurcopterus was monotypic). With Abelisauridae, I made my size comparison after all the other existing ones were created. With Tyrannosauridae, it would, in theory, be useful for genera with multiple species (Daspletosaurus) or multiple good specimens (Gorgosaurus, Tarbosaurus, Tyrannosaurus), but they aren't used this way (except sort of for Tarbo). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agustinia restoration edit

 
Agustinia

This restoration of Agustinia is outdated and ought to be revised because the putative osteoderms are actually pelvic and rib fragments.Extrapolaris (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

It should not be revised. A new one should be made. This one is completely fine for historical purposes. 2001:569:782B:7A00:51CA:9760:2236:2651 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the image was made when it was thought to have had these features, so it is a good historical example. But an entirely new image could be made. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map of ceratopsian discoveries edit

 
Ceratopsian fossil discoveries. The presence of Jurassic ceratopsians only in Asia indicates an Asian origin for the group, while the more derived ceratopsids occur only in North America save for one Asian species. Questionable remains are indicated with question marks.

This map should be revised to reflect South Sudan's independence from Sudan, but also the discovery of Ajkaceratops, the treatment of Stenopelix and Albalophosaurus as ceratopsians in recent cladistic analyses, and a 2007 paper considering Craspedodon a probable neoceratopsian.Extrapolaris (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Once again, the question mark needs defining in the legend. What's the source on that central Asian ceratopsid? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ceratopsid classification of Turanoceratops is after Sues and Averianov (2009). Source: Sues, H.-D., and Averianov, A. (2009). Turanoceratops tardabilis—the first ceratopsid dinosaur from Asia. Naturwissenschaften doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0518-9.Extrapolaris (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Thecodontosaurus Size Comparison edit

 

I was making some dinosaur playing cards over the summer, and one of the new dinosaurs that I drew was Thecodontosaurus (A♠). I recently discovered that the article lacked a size comparison, but did have a good skeletal, so I created a scale diagram and uploaded it here. Is it okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Irritator edit

 

Yes, a purposefully inaccurate restoration, this might be a first timer, haha. I drew this in order to portray how Martill et al. originally reconstructed the damaged holotype; misinterpreting a piece of indeterminate bone for a fin-shaped crest on top of the head. I could've made a diagram of the original reconstruction but since this article has enough skull images as it is (with the PLOS One image on the way after I make more room) I thought It'd be more interesting to have a life restoration. Also, I just realized I was basing the entire description section on Martill et al.'s outdated paper instead of Sues et al's 2002 description on the fully prepared skull. Currently in the process of fixing that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of morphological comparison, I think it would be more appropriate to use a skull diagram (that's where the differences are most obvious after all, the flesh and inevitable interpenetration of the original diagram kind of obscures this), but well, maybe others have different opinions. If at all, such a drawing should probably be much more diagrammatical, as not to be misleading in terms of its accuracy, you are showing details here (pattern, dewlap, scalation) that go way beyond what the original interpretation actually conveys. If it was thoguht to be a maniraptoran, shouldt then be shown with feathers? It is not really up to us to answer that question or favour any one interpretation, because we simply don't know what the original researchers were thinking. It's a fun personal exercise, but I think we're wandering into questionable territory by adding purposely inaccurate life restorations to Wikipedia articles... I don't think the genus has ever even had a published life restoration based on that interpretation, so there is a lack of precedence and danger of original research. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You make some valid points, although life restorations on this interpretation have been published in various books:[49][50][51][52] a diagram, as you say, is probably a better idea since it is more neutral. Sometimes I forget that what is acceptable in the outside paleoart community for example, can conflict with Wikipedia guidelines like WP:OR, such as what happened with my Oxalaia restoration. I'll try to keep a more watchful eye for that, although it can be a slippery slope... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diagram, any suggested changes? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible the restoration and diagram could be fit together in a single image? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the pages linked, but yeah, would be best to base details on them, without any original interpretations of the anatomy. I think it'd be best to show the diagram adjacent to the restoration, if it is used. The best solution would of course be if there was a restoration from the time we could use. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My restoration was based entirely on the ones in those books though, including the scales and the dewlap; since they were all made after Irritator was assigned to the spinosauridae, although they still used Martill and colleagues' outdated skull reconstruction. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It says I have to somehow "borrow" those books, do you need an account to see them? FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's completely free though, although you're put on a waitlist if somebody else is using it at the same time. I typically write down/screenshot all the information relevant to my research topic from those books and then give them back. It's a good way to access sources that are pay-walled elsewhere. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I completely rewrote the description of Irritator to match up with Sues et al.'s more updated paper. Gonna continue expansion, but for now, here's the diagram merged with the restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is shaping up! Could benefit form that Brazil map used in Oxalaia, and I wonder if the old Jaime Headden skull diagram is as accurate as the upper part of fig. 11 in the Sales & Schultz paper. Seems it needs a crest. It also reconstructs the snout a much deeper. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there's some room, I've added more images to the article (including the map and historical restoration). Anything that should be changed/improved on? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be good to move the life restoration to the description where people expect to see a depiction. Some of the skull images there would be relevant under palaeobiology too anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Swapped it with the closeup image of Irritator's teeth. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brachiosaurus restorations edit

Now that Brachiosaurus has been nominated for FAC, I realised the two restorations in the article have never been properly reviewed, though they might have some issues. But I'm not really a sauropod expert, so have a look:

  •  
    By NT
  •  
    By DBogdanov
  •  
    Flipped version
  •  
    Bogdanov's restoration is used here
  •  
    as well as here

The first one seems to have somewhat unusual forelimbs, with a pretty huge lump for an elbow. The scales also seem pretty huge, they were supposedly so small that they wouldn't have been visible individually at such a distance. The second one is pretty old, and has already had its feet and head modified once. One of the hindfeet seems like it's collapsing, though, the musculature seems kind of odd, and the teeth should probably not poke out like that. The tail end also seems a bit wonky. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BD's Brachio also seems to have a shoulder joint that's pretty high up, but I'm not sure I'm right about that. Monsieur X may be interested in working on these. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate you mentioning me, now as for these reconstructions. I could be wrong (It's hard to tell with the head markings), but Nobu's "Brach" skull also looks a bit too round compared to the other reconstruction, as well as Scott Hartman's skeletal diagram. If I'm correct, Nobu's reconstruction might need to be edited slightly and blurred, hardest part to edit would be the skull (unless I'm mistaken of course). Bogdanov's "Brach" is head and feet are fine (teeth are easy to erase), but the legs and tail might have to be moved, erased, smoothed out and in the worst case scenario redrawn. I'm also not sure about the quills/spines on Bogdanov's reconstruction, it seems more like a Apatosaurinae thing. Monsieur X (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wager the head of NT's image simply has some sort of inflatable balloon thing connected to the nostrils. I suspect that was the intention with the original version of DB's image too, before it was edited. As for the spines, well, we have no idea (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and it isn't exactly uncommon for such to be added to any kind of sauropod these days. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I do see a frigatebird-esque inflatable sac on NT's image, not sure about Bogdanov's original though . I'll leave the quills, but I might have to remove some if they become an inconvenience. Monsieur X (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, since inflatable nasal sac thingies are not mentioned by the sources used in the article, it is best not to point them out. They're just as speculative as colour, dewlaps, or spikes, but that's self evident. But if a reviewer brings it up, and we can't point to a relevant source, we may have to make the head more skull-hugging. FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for that egregious error. Monsieur X (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh... I'm not sure we should be so quick to dismiss the head. Anyone seen Mark Witton's post on shrinkwrapping? Because macronarians are mentioned more than once xD http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-convention-of-shrink-wrapping.html --TKWTH (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After this discussion, I also looked at one of Czerka's books, as he usually had some weird ideas, and sure enough, he mentions the possibility of "crests" in brachiosaurids, based on the weird nasal structure. So now that can at least be added to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure inflatable sac what NT was going for, a lot of sauropod nosrils in palaeoart are going in a more fleshy direction. I'd imagine Mark Witton's upcoming Paleoartists handbook will be a great source for Wikipedia paleoart. When dealing with a Wikipedia reviewer who is unfamiliar with paleoart it would be a good source to point them towards and we can cite it etc. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blurred out the scales on NT's reconstruction and reduced the size of elbow, any thoughts and criticisms? Just a heads up, I'll be touching it up little more later on. The spots are a wee bit too blurry for my liking. Monsieur X (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will of course be a bit painstaking, but the spots could be pasted on from the old version, if you want sharper outlines. Then the yellow part could be erased so the blurry yellow underneath comes up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my plan, which is why I saved a WIP version just in case (I also upped the contrast on the black rings). After some minor changes, I feel satisfied with the current edit. Unless someone has any major grievances with it. Monsieur X (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sadly couldn't fix the tail and legs on Bogdanov's restoration, just seems too much for me. I did edit the teeth out and smoothed out the skin a bit. Just a heads up, Bogdanov's restoration is used in multiple different images, so if anyone wants to fix the Bogdanov's restoration, they should probably flip the image. Monsieur X (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I think the tail is ok, apart from the weird pose. As for the compilation images, they use the oldest version of the restoration, so they will take some work. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well put the rest of those Sauropods for review, I've been making some adjustments to Bogdanov's Camarasaurus that need to be looked into and his Giraffatitan hasn't been touched since 2007! Monsieur X (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did some fixes to the head, leg, and tail of the Brachiosaurus, should be a bit less wonky now. Remember, Monsieur X, if you just paint over the teeth so that area becomes part of the lower jaw, you end up giving the animals underbites. Better to paint the lips of the upper jaw over them. FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More spinosaurids edit

I recently did a full cleanup of all the spinosaur categories and images on commons, and among the slew of hopelessly inaccurate images I tucked away, here's some good/potentially salvageable ones:

  •  
    This one is pretty spot on in regards to the anatomy, looks to be based partially on this image:[5]
  •  
    The head is too short to pass for Suchomimus but it could be useful as a generic spinosaur. However, nostrils should be placed further back and the lowermost part of the leg above the ankles could use shortening
  •  
    This one looks fine if we can find a way to hide/fix the pronated right arm
  •  
    Fixed lumpy leg

Your thoughts on these? Monsieur X might be able to work something out on the last two, if he's interested. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the backwards pointing crest spike in the first image is maybe a bit too exaggerated. The second image seems very wonky, and considering how many Suchomimus restorations we have already (including a better one in almost the same pose), we don't really need it. As for the last image, whether the arm is pronated or not, it looks like the whole body is leaning on that hand, which indicates an inaccurate quadrupedal pose. That can't really be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looks like it's just the first one left then, that small bit of the crest can be easily painted over. Although it's not entirely implausible given how much keratin can extend features on an animal's skull. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the crest shape in the skull reconstruction is based on, though. And by the way, even DBogdanov's Suchomimus[53] seems to have some weirdness in the thighs, like they don't connect with the hips. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a more lateral view of the skull[54], perhaps the front of it could given this more rounded shape to be less speculative. The legs on DB's restoration always seemed odd to me from when I first saw that drawing years ago, but nobody really pointed it out until now... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think theres just a bit too much darkening around the thigh in the DB sucho, and maybe removing the black lines would also help. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is also how the upper leg seems to taper upwards, long before reaching the hip, which it shouldn't. I'l try to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the leg and some other things in DB's image. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, given what Mark Witton's said in the past about keratinous extensions, there's every chance the first one's crest might not be extravagant enough xD--TKWTH (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my issue, though, is what the backwards pointing crest itself is based on. Which fossils have this feature? The 2014 reconstruction is part chimaera of multiple specimens (perhaps not belonging to the same taxa, as even Sigilmassasaurus was incorporated) and part reconstruction from thin air. FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euhelopus, Giraffatitan and Camarasaurus restorations by Dmitry Bogdanov edit

  •  
    Tail's longer as inferred by Tangvayosaurus
  •  
    I've made some modifications to this one
  •  
    Now edited
  •  
    The Dino Weapons Guys have been edited
  •  
    The gang's all here and they're no longer washed out

Since we've looked at his Brachiosaurus, we might as well look at the rest of sauropods he worked on that were grouped with his Brachiosaurus. His Giraffatitan hasn't been touched since 2007! Monsieur X (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wonder why the arms look shorter than the legs in the Giraffatitan... FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Brachiosaurus is gonna have the larger nasal sacs (and I personally say it should), Giraffatitan DEFINITELY should too. Plus, Bogdanov really has a thing with shrinkwrapping the living daylights out of the limbs, especially at the hips and shoulders. The skin should be looser and not conform so tightly to the bone/muscle.--TKWTH (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question is whether those nasal structures are supposed to be inflatable or not, because if they are, that would explain why one can be inflated while the other is not. In any case, it would probably be best to replace the brachiosaurus with the modified version. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the Giraffatitan, I hopefully fixed the short front legs without causing any problems. Any thoughts and critiques? Also, does anyone else think that Euhelopus' tail seems a bit too small. Here's Tangvayosaurus tail for comparison. Monsieur X (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better But to make it more natural looking, I wonder if the original wrinkles around the shoulder and around the eye could be kept? Again, different colour/demarcated orbits is certainly not unknown in modern animals. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the image to suit your critique, I'll do some alterations to the Euhelopus reconstruction and the Macronaria size charts either tomorrow (later today where I live) or the day after. If need be, I will also do further edits to the Giraffatitan image. Monsieur X (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, any thoughts and critiques? Monsieur X (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and I see that weird tail stump that was poking in from the lower right has finally been removed, haha, it has annoyed me for years... FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Ornithopods edit

 
I am Shantungosaurus, leader of the dinosaurian marching band, puny human!

Lusotitan, I've decided to continue this section further down where it will be easier for more users to find. Here's the WIP for the giant ornithopod chart. I will try to find skeletals for Shantungosaurus, Saurolophus, and Edmontosaurus annectans. I'll add a link to a mock-up of the final version soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure how I feel about the giant Iguanodon. As far as I know it's just based on the source its page list, a book from 2001. Making the estimate nearly two decades old and difficult to verify. You'd be about as far ahead including the apocryphal 17 metre Hypsibema estimates based on chunks of vertebra (which is not an invitation). I'd chop off about a half metre from the Magnapaulia. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, there are all sorts of old lousy estimates based on a few bad bones (15m Tyrannosaurus, 50m Diplodocus, 30m Brachiosaurus, 60m Megalosaurus, 12m Stegosaurus). I didn't like the concept of a 13m Iguanodon either, so I shrunk that. Comments? Would it be better to revert the Shantungosaurus/Magnapaulia/Edmontosaurus image to the older version or keep it as it is? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both the current image and the old one are poor beyond any possible use, so I'd just leave it as is at the wayside and keep working on this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Charonosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe upsize the labels a bit? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I think that I'm gonna need help to locate the three more skeletals that I'll need. I might stand a chance eyballing Edmontosaurus annectans from Paul, but I'm not sure about the other two. Does anyone know of any good Shantungosaurus or Saurolophus skeletals online? Any help will be appreciated. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GetAwayTrike has a Shantungosaurus skeletal [55]. His work is reliable enough to my knowledge, but it noted for poorly accounting for bone crushing. This should do, especially with no viable alternative available. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lusotitan, unless you have any objections, I think that the "marching band" is ready. 7 taxa in all. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Charonosaurus head is too small, and the colours of the first few might cause issues for FunkMonk because they're so similar in shade? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the first four should have much more diverse colours. Could be good with a yellow in there, maybe for the second one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this scheme look better? I opened the comparison with GIMP and turned it to grayscale mode to make sure that the colors were more distinct from each other, sort of like what I did for my abelisaurid comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, and in general, keep the dinosaurs with similar colours as far as possible from each other, if they overlap, it can be hard to see them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mind if I add this to the relevant articles (Dinosaur size, Shantungosaurus, Magnapaulia, Charonosaurus, and ?Hadrosauridae), or is there anything more to do? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I received external feedback and am waiting on further response. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any news? (Just checking since it's been awhile and this is getting pretty high up.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've not gotten any further response, so I'm going to approve the image and if I get feedback later that some things need changing we can bring it back in for review. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsintaosaurus reconstructions edit

I recently uploaded Nobu Tamura's Tsintaosaurus and wanted to know if it and a few other Tsintaosaurus reconstructions were accurate. 16:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Monsieur X (talk)

The first one is non-free, though (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0), I think the third one could maybe be saved with some edits. The middle one looks a bit shapeless... FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The third one is hopelessly shrink wrapped and the crest just... doesn't follow the new reconstruction properly at all. I'm also very skeptical about that angular scalation, especially on a crest in that manner. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the second one has an oddly-cropped blue background and seems too simplistic to be useable. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time NT's restoration has been uploaded here, I think. I guess we could ask NT to upload it if we felt that we really needed it. I also once drew a Tsintaosaurus, but it just didn't work out. However, this image appears to be under a CC BY 3.0: [56]. It's by Teratophoneus, and if it's accurate, I'm wondering if Paleocolour might want to color it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen Paleocolour in a while, actually... The last time I remember was in May when she agreed to color my Oxalaia (here[57]). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh seems we could definitely use this and other images by Teratophoneus then. Shouldn't be a problem that they are in black and white. FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, crap. This CC stuff is confusing, this probably has to do with the lack of a GNU Free Documentation License. Should I nominate NT's Tsintaosaurus for deletion? Monsieur X (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sadly ("NC-ND" is always a danger signal). As for the last image, if someone wants to fix it, here is the last discussion about it:[58] FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do with Wagner's reconstruction, that mouth might be the hardest part to fix. I also went ahead and nominate Nobu's reconstruction for deletion (I'd rather be wrong than a thief). That reminds me, there's a huge amount of stolen dino models from video games that need be taken care of. Monsieur X (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I nominated a few. I think mariomassone uploaded these, but just like Flickr, the fact that an image or a video is uploaded to Youtube with a free license doesn't mean that the actual creator of this imagery has actually released it as such. Anyone can upload the works of others (game models in this case) under a free licence, but that doesn't make it free, so we need to be aware and look out for that. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few months back a Deviantart user was asking me to upload my restoration, seen here: [59]. If you guys want it here I can do that, I'd like to remove most of the background because it's just generic with very little 'scientific' thought put into it. I just need to find time to do that. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice, certainly welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great! Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, added my Tsintaosaurus to the Commons. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the article, it is a bit image heavy now, but maybe some of the others can be removed until the article is expanded. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited Wagner's reconstruction with the critiques in mind, however, wasn't sure what to do with that beak due to the confusing perspective. I was surprised on how old the reconstruction was, it might be old enough to drink in most countries. Any critiques and/or suggestions? BTW, I'm well aware of the lack of space on the current version of the article thanks to Steveoc 86's fantastic contribution. However, Wagner's image is still in use on non-english wikis for the time being. Monsieur X (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, shows that the idea of the alternative crest shape has been floating around for a long time before it was published... FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobu's Tsintaosaurus reconstruction was evaluated by Sealle and was kept. I have felt a message on their wikimedia discussion page on why it shouldn't be kept, but if you have anything add this discussion, be my guest. Monsieur X (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a misunderstanding, he didn't link the DR when he asked about it[60], so I didn't know it was of this image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Monsieur X and FunkMonk: I suppose the disclaimer at the root directory is valid for the whole website and it allows us to consider ones at the certain pages insignificant. I see multi-licensed work as is. Sealle (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise, all this stuff relating to Creative Commons is all rather confusing to me. Monsieur X (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See c:Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. Sealle (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping NobuTamura to see if he can clarify what he meant, just to be on the safe side. He's not very active anymore, but he may still respond. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a higher chance of him responding if you ask on Twitter or him send an email Monsieur X (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With Steveoc's contribution we don't really have any use for Tamura's Tsintaosaurus at this point, so it's not a huge deal for this particular case. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact PaleoGeekSquared I made the second image, but since it has been placed here now I would like to redo it so that it stops being simplistic and badly colored. After 3 years I think this image deserves a change --Levi bernardo (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rugops and Chilesaurus edit

 
 
 

This image just got added to the Rugops article without review, I actually know this artist from instagram, and it's interestingly the second occasion of an IG paleoartist recently adding their restoration to Wikipedia (After Damouraptor's Cretoxyrhina). I was actually the one that told him about the process of the image upload and review pages, and a few other IG artists have asked me how they can get their work on the site. It's cool to see that we're getting another fresh source of paleoart contributors on top of the recent ones from DeviantArt.

Anyways, what are your guys thoughts on this Rugops? It looks fine to me in regards to proportions and overall anatomy, and it's definitely of much higher quality than the rather blurry one we have now. But I'm not sure if the spiny skin would be considered too speculative for the Wiki, (the artist has detailed his research for the drawing on the commons page). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Chilesaurus he's uploaded as well, (note of a similar discussion on the paleoart review page) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The small spikes are probably ok, the only really odd thing about the Rugops image is that the claw on the background foot is below the level of the front foot, which would be impossible from this angle (unless supposed to be dragged through mud or something). As for Chilesaurus, the hand actually seems to be pronated. It also seems to be based on Jaime Headden's skeletal which gives it a very long skull, whereas most other reconstructions show it with a pretty short skull. Not wure what the reason is behind this discrepancy. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, seems like Fanboyphilosopher left a comment on the Chilesaurus before I moved it here. "They all look accurate to me, even the weird hand of the Chilesaurus closely corresponds to the findings of Chimento et al. (2017)." Would this account for the apparent hand pronation? Sorry, I'm not too knowledgable about this taxa. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hand posture seems to fit what is shown in figure 5 here: doi:10.5710/AMGH.11.06.2017.3088 It is hard for me to see if the angle shown there corresponds to the same angle it is shown in in relation to the body in the life restoration. The paper compares the posture to that of maniraptorans which could not pronate, so it's a bit hard to saw what's going on. The hand pose seens to be due to the presence of something like a semilunate carpal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Chilesaurus is accurate. The arm posture matches the lateral view from the papers diagram (fig 5?) and the skull isn't known enough to determine snout length. For the rugops, it looks like only the legs vertical positioning needs fixing, as the rest looks reasonably enough. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't notice that the dino images were already posted here. Anyways, I agree with IJReid on Chilesaurus. The angle of the forelimb does seem to correspond to figure 5([61]) by my reckoning. You can see that the metacarpals are distinctly relayed in a medial-to-lateral pattern. Figure 5-1 even says that the hands are visible in palmar view when the arm as a whole is seen in dorsal view. Wing folding in birds kind of requires that kind of positioning, right? In order to keep the primary feathers pointed medially. Moreover, I don't think a long-ish skull is bad per se, not much of it is known so as long as the boxy premaxilla is there it's not inaccurate by our knowledge. The short skull reconstructions may have been inspired by NT's image, which may not have been well-researched considering it included a beak, which would have been extremely unlikely given the premaxillary teeth. As for Rugops, the background foot does seem to be lower than the foreground one, but it doesn't seem to be too problematic to me. A lot of these white background images have the same kinds of ambiguity with how level the ground was. Could it have been on a downward slope? Was it wading into water? Or, as said earlier, was it dragging through mud or some other kind of riverbank sediment? I've seen far more unusual interactions with the "invisible ground", so this doesn't seem as bothersome. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The short skull is how it is reconstructed in all the technical papers, NT has just followed that. I think Jaime Headden is the first one to restore a long skull. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, NT isn't really to blame for that. But still, key areas of the middle part of the skull are missing, so I don't think a long skull would be inaccurate. Especially considering that the skeletal restoration in the Chilesaurus paper had a frontal that was way too short in relation to the other skull fragments, as seen in the supplemental info. Headden does his research, and we don't know who was responsible for the paper's skeletal, so we can't really say if it is more accurate. Inaccurate skeletals get published in the primary literature all the time, with stuff like pronated hands still appearing in some recent papers. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I can explain the traditional reconstruction of Chilesaurus as well as give a couple of comments similar to those made to the author of the book "Récords y curiosidades de los dinosaurios terópodos y otros dinosauromorfos" for the reconstruction in life [62] that they were going to include for the Chilesaurus, they used the Jaime diagram, besides putting 3 claws on the fingers because the phalange of the third finger is not atrophied. The first detail that must be taken into account for the skull is that it is of a juvenile individual, and we have already seen that some dinosaurs like Limusaurus can give us great surprises with skulls of more juvenile individuals. So the hypothesis on the part of Jaime A. Headden of an elongated skull is attractive to [63] me, the best thing in these cases is to be neutral and more when we get involved with the reconstruction of an animal whose relationship is in debate. So I suggest that the shape of the skull is based on the skulls of animals with which it has been related in the three different studies, Sauropodomorpha, Basal Theropoda and Basal Ornithischia this would be a somewhat triangular but elongated skull. The ramphotheca in Chilesaurus is suggested in the original article by Novas et al. 2015 and it makes sense if we look at fossils, in addition to similar and similar cases such as Sauropodomorphs and therizinosaurians (Especially Jianchangosaurus). Another disturbing issue of the reconstruction of the Nature paper publicity is that the author of the illustration is Gabriel Lio who despite having the support and support of paleontologists in Latin America, his reconstructions may not be 100% accurate in coloration, postures and anatomy. Fernando Novas simply recommended that he make a short skull. Ask questions to someone who was with Fernando Novas in a conference, about the claws on the fingers and the length of the skull, sadly I was not answered for lack of time. Before the different publications on the classification of Chilesaurus you can make a neutral one with which you can simply identify it as a Dinosaur, you have an almost complete skeleton, besides the only unknown parts are parts of the skull and tail, I do not think that is a problem for the reconstruction. Now observing the illustration of Liam Elward I observe that the claw of the first digit is very small if we compare it with the illustrations of the fossil, in addition we must not forget the podoteca. The first finger of the right leg is not visible, I think it is due to the posture of both legs but it may have been visible from that angle. I should do a comparison to be sure. In addition, the rhamphotheca should be more visible and large at least 15% more than the premaxillary bone extends. But from then on it is a very good illustration. --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging PrehistoryByLiam for the Rugops leg fix, should otherwise be easy for anyone to do. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the leg up and added a bit of extra whitespace around the subject in the cropped version of the image here. I think it should replace the other Rugops image, however the article is sorely in need of expanding at this point, image overload. Paleocolour (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might give it a good expansion soon, its one of my favourite abelisaurs so it's certainly on my to-do-list! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaijiangosaurus edit

 

I don't normally do life restorations, but the Kaijiangosaurus article was looking pretty bare, so I thought that I'd have another go at doing this guy (you can see my first attempt here: [64]). I restored it after several tetanurans, especially the Chinese Sinraptor (and its relative Gasosaurus), although there are bits from Piatnitzkysaurus, Eustreptospondylus, and Monolophosaurus in there. It is intended to be investigating a trail or crouching to avoid detection. I plan to color it in a similar manner to what I did in the old version, but with a tanish belly, more diffused stripes, and a banded tail. Comments/Corrections/Suggestions? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, although the right leg is awfully straight from hip to toes. That should be remedied. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I bent the leg. Does this new pose look better? It does give it more of a stealthy feel. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The left foot needs more of a fleshy pad, but that looks like it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that better or should I add more? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The outermost toe needs a touch more, just thicken the base and curve that in to the claw. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the thigh is too narrow, compared to the length of the pelvis. Also remember the ear... FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made the fixes, I don't believe that I forgot the ear! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out that the ear actually was just lost in the scan. Here's a better shaded version, If nothing's wrong, then it probably will be time to color the animal. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a bit more shading. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ehhh, that frontmost hand looks to be a bit too pronated, in my opinion; might want to make it more supinated, since this taxon's current (and, admittedly, uncertain) cladistic placement doesn't lean to the capacity of pronation being particularly likely. I'd maybe also thicken the neck a bit, too, but that's not really a huge thing. Raptormimus456 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the arm is supposed to be lifted, which logically makes the palms face more ventrally. But in that case, the entire arm should probably be moved a bit up to account for perspective and foreshortening. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have lifted the arm. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks better. The neck could still use a bit more meat at the base, IMO, but that's a mileage-may-vary deal, so it's not like you'd have to change it for it to work in the article. Raptormimus456 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to change it tomorrow. By the way, I hope all of you had/are having (depending on your time zone) an excellent National Fossil Day! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, only in America! FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do wonder if there are other days like that in other countries... anyways, here's a thicker-necked version. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. In hindsight, we should maybe have nominated an American fossil taxon as today's featured article on that day... FunkMonk (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems slightly too big, you could compare with skeletals of related animals that show the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to butt in here, but I could colour the image for you if you would like. I have scale textures and a few brushes that could make it look like my other restorations. I'll leave the decision up to you. Paleocolour (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shrank the eye a bit, it seems like basal tetanurans (i.e. Monolophosaurus, Megalosaurus) had relatively large sclerotic rings (although the visible eye would of course been smaller). Thanks for the offer, but for this time I want to attempt it myself. However, I would definitely be interested in doing a collaboration sometime. Since nothing else seems amiss, I'm going to add scales now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since no further objection has been made, I added it to the article. I will remove it if anything else is amiss. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingentia Size Diagram edit

 
Size diagram of Ingentia prima compared to human.

I have created a size diagram of Ingentia prima, based upon the measurements included in the image published with the paper found here. Are there any changes needed? To note, I have seen messages on my page and I will address them at some point. Life is busy at the moment! Paleocolour (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, I have a friend (megalotitan on deviantart) who's making his own Ingentia chart using the fossil images. Apparently the skeletal from the paper is really, really poorly made. He knows more about it than I do, but I see where he's coming from. The posture is all sorts of wonky and the skull looks like the 1931 Brontosaurus skull for no real reason. You may want to get in touch with him. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making a lessemsaurid composite using all the genera in the family, but yes, I do plan to edit it to Ingentia proportions. The paper's skeletal is indeed very bad; it has weird proportions, bone shape, and articulation, and as noted has a skull that has an uncanny resemblance to the old reconstructions of Brontosaurus skulls (a Melanorosaurus skull would work better in this case). Megalotitan (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I don't have access to the full paper so I wasn't able to see all the found fossils from their orthographic angles, but I do agree the skeleton articulation is very odd, especially when compared to Lessemsaurus (which could do for an article expansion + images too). However, to avoid Original Research I only modified the soft tissue around the articulated skeleton in the image published with the paper. I would be happy to update this size diagram if needed, and indeed draw a proper restoration of this creature sometime down the line. Paleocolour (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can always access a paper for free by copy and pasting the doi into sci-hub. Plus, silhouettes or skeletals informed by fossil data don't really count as Original Research. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus edit

 

As mentioned on the Tyrannosaurus talk page, here is my version [65]. The one linked to here has had the scars removed and has face detailing more consistent with Mark Witton's interpretation, seen here: [66] He also has an SVPCA poster on his Patreon regarding this. I'm also thinking of adding scutes on the feet. One thing that wasn't clear from the discussion on the talk page was whether this would be used to represent a completely non-feathered T.rex or just to leave it as is with partial feathering in the unknown areas? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good compromise, it probably shows the minimum amount of feathers if there were any. And it was only one user who wanted two different restorations, I think we already have enough images that show the other extremes, this one is good as the first one in the article, since it is so tone ddown. I wonder if a right facing version could be uploaded as well? Because then it could easily take the spot of Witton's image, as it is encouraged that subjects of images face the text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll leave the feathering as is and I'll produce it as a right facing version when I eventually upload to the commons.Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it to the Wiki Commons. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks suh-weeeet! IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, added! FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puertasaurus Mk. II edit

  Being worked on
 
Life restoration
 
Size comparison

I've decided to have a go at expanding the Puertasaurus article, so I'm going to resubmit these two images that I made for Puertasaurus. I recently renovated the life restoration into something less cheesy. I made these fixes:

  • Shrunk the huge eye
  • Closed mouth to hide poorly executed teeth
  • Beefed up neck
  • Added shading
  • Changed the osteoderm pattern to match our other lognkosaur restorations
  • Fixed pose of the rear leg so its angled further backwards
  • Added the limbs from the other side to make it look more life-like
  • Smoothed out the crude outline
  • General cleanup

Is there anything else that I still need to do? For the size chart, it definitely could be improved to match my Mk. IV format. Also, how did it pass in the first place, considering that I spelled it as rOuLli when it really was rEuIli? (And by the way, I'm trying out some templates.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the expansion, I don't know too much about sauropod anatomy, but at least the eye seems a bit too big, and the feet seem like they are kind of tipping upwards, they could probably be made to look more solidly planted. Or at least it looks that way, because if you look at the lower contour of the feet, is is not level with the margin of the image. As for the article itself, I wonder if it might be best to use the single vertebra image as the taxobox image (it is kind of overshadowed by Argentinosaurus in the current image). FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, another case of the curse of the invisible ground! Anyways, I've implemented the fixes that you suggested. I'm probably gonna have to lower the arm. Expansion was going well until I discovered a lack of consensus on the name of the formation it's from and that of the four known vertebrae only two were figured, or even described in the paper. The two caudal verts are only stated to exist and be procoelous. It also would appear that the paper that described Puertasaurus is the only paper devoted to this taxon. Any comments on the added text or what to do for Paleoecology (Orkoraptor may have the needed info)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is disagreement about something, it's fine to just explain it in the text without taking side. As for getting more sources, Google scholar shows a lot of articles that mention Puertasaurus at least, so maybe there is more to add from them. I found one[67] that mentions detailed comparison with Puertasaurus in the supplementary material[68], perhaps something to check out. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made the hand more columnar like in Patagotitan, which fixed that invisible ground problem. Yeah, I saw that paper, looks to be rather promising. How do you cite supplementary material? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think you could just cite the paper, the supplements are technically part of it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add the restoration to the size comparison and article now or is there something else? And can an article be peer-reviewed with shooting for GA status (I'm considering doing that when I feel "done" expanding it)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you can mention in the beginning of the peer review what you are aiming for. As for adding the diagram, we should probably wait until some of the sauropod/diagram folks have a look, I'm not really an expert on those. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Puertasaurus should certainly be based upon Notocolossus if possible, and after that Dreadnoughtus then Futalognkosaurus, or, if you want to be far less controversial and far more polytomy-ic, use just whatever lognkosaur is most complete. But the dorsal is definitely more similar to Notocolossus and Dreadnoughtus than more derived titanosaurs. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the neck a bit and elongated the tail a bit. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As only four vertebrae are known, it seems unwise to make a full-blown skeletal. It would necessarily be largely incorrect and thus be very deceptive.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a skeletal of such a fragmentary animal should only show the known bones. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, sorry for being ambiguous. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I have for a skeletal so far: [69] gray areas restored after Patagotitan. The Puertasaurus paper was published before the shark-fin cervicals of lognkosaurs (or lognkosaurs themselves, for that matter) were known. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There also happen to be two caudal vertebrae known I believe, but neither figured and very limited description. See other "skeletals" of the taxon. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[70] [71] [72] [73] Yeah, I'm aware of them, I'm just not sure what to do for them. Should I just grab two mid-caudal verts from Patagotitan and put them in gray? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maraapunisaurus edit

 
Size of M. fragillimus (orange) and Amphicoelias altus (green) compared in size with a human, based on Cope's possibly misleading description of the M. fragillimus material

So, uh, "A." fragillimus just got a new name, Maraapunisaurus. I've already gone and split the articles (Carpenter wrote this paper and also contributed in important ways to the older literature, so I think it makes sense to split off this one study since he obviously agrees with himself); obviously, I still have to make big updates to the new article reflecting the new paper. The size diagram is going to need to go in favor of one reflecting the new reconstruction. Preferably, Carpenter's old size estimate, his new one, a Limaysaurus, and whatever Diplodocus estimate he used to get his old one would make up the diagram. The caption and legend would explain that one is old and one is new and the caption noting that the two smaller sauropods were used to make each estimate. If anyone wanted, we could do a restoration based on other basal rebbachisaurs like Paranthodon and Dromaeosauroides got. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, doesn't seem the best idea to erect a genus based on non-existing fossils, hehe... I wonder what species that Polish model is supposed to be, it probably shouldn't be shown in both articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the size I would assume Maraapunisaurus. Funnily enough, this isn't even the first time a rebbachisaurid genus was erected for a lost dorsal vertebrae - Nopcsaspondylus beat it by over a decade. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but at least photos of it exist... The model should probably be removed from Amphicoelias then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather ridiculously, and seemingly against usual processes, Amphicoelias fragillimus has been locked from editing by an administrator ten years ago for spurious reasons, so we can't even redirect it to the right article. Perhaps could unprotect it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paper[74] doesn't include a specified license, but it does include a section regarding the re-use and distribution of its contents, including figures, as follows: "This is an open-access article in which the Utah Geological Association permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of text and figures that are not noted as copyrighted, provided the original author and source are credited." I'm unsure on what wikipedia's stance on this sort of thing is, but I thought it was worth bringing up for this. DrawingDinosaurs (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a specific licence is needed. Perhaps the website states it somewhere... FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're also certainly going to have to demote Amphicoelias from GA, seeing as what's left is arguably more of a mess than the current state of Maraapunisaurus' article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone create a new diagram illustrating the revised size estimates for Maarapunisaurus by Carpenter (2018), considering that the femoral length for this taxon is still the same as for other rebbachisaurids despite the estimated vertebral height of AMNH 5777?Extrapolaris (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I've just changed the redirect for that binomial Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Casliber, but is there any good reason why it should remain edit protected? FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk I am guessing because of the vandalism. The protecting admin still edits so you could ask him. Never mind I just did. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to have ever been vandalised, and it doesn't seem to be common practice to indef protect any page for this reason anyhow? But thanks for asking the editor. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [75] Here's a Diplodocus silhouette I made awhile ago (I made it back when we were discussing Steve's rearing chart). If it's accurate, then I may proceed to make Limaysaurus (there's a skeletal in the only linked paper in the article). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several of us share the thoughts of your first comment FunkMonk hehe. Well, as you know Xenoposeidon was originaly believed to be the oldest rebbachisaur. In the same way try to make the illustration in life of Xenoposeidon as basal as possible. So because Xenoposeidon is based on just one vertebra, it would not impact much if we wanted to use my Xenoposeidon illustration as a silhouette for the silhouette of Maraapunisaurus. It could be similar to that of Carpenter, both a comparative size silhouette and a fossil diagram. We only place the speculative silhouette of the vertebra in side view. In addition we could add a speculative drawing of the femur and demarcate with a slightly different color to denote that it is completely unknown as it really was. I would also like to take advantage and make the silhouette of Xenoposeidon. Sure, we can eliminate the spikes for both silhouettes. Are you ok with it? --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, keep the old one, so that we can compare both hypotheses.--MWAK (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Large dinosaurs comparison edit

 
 

The silhouette of Maraapunisaurus in these images should be updated because Carpenter (2018) revises the size estimates of Maraapunisaurus from 190 feet to 99-104 feet based on what is known about the biological limits of sauropod gigantism. Also, Patagotitan is now the most complete gigantic sauropod and ought to be included in those images.Extrapolaris (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I don't believe either of these are currently in any use, we have more recent takes on both of these diagrams. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Little is known about the biological limits of sauropod gigantism :o). New images are desirable but keep the old ones so that we can compare hypotheses.--MWAK (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haplocanthosaurus skeletal edit

 

I figure I might as well submit this image for review, the Haplocanthosaurus article does need a few better images. This is the "H. utterbacki" specimen, which is the most complete, and the scale bar is 1m. H. priscus was used for unknown cervicals and multiple caudals, the ilium and femur. H. delfsi was used for the limb ratios and ribs, Dicraeosaurus was used for the tail, Nigersaurus was used for the manus and pes, and the skull is Galeamopus but distorted and modified to represent a more generic basal taxon. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's an awesome job! I see everything well, for me.--Levi bernardo (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! How long does it take to do a full-body skeletal like this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! To my eye, it seems like the humeri are not seated in the glenoid socket correctly, ie, the forelimbs need to come forward a little bit? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe, I think I'll modify the outline of the humeri as well. From start to finish this took me about a year, but that was about 99% noncontinuous work. Took maybe a week total. I'll make that fix asap. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change has been done, I think I'd like to add it to the article now, replacing the very very poorly-constructed delfsi mount. The entire shoulder girdles are out of place, the head is awful, and the tail is dragging. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That abomination is in the taxobox?! Considering that the coracoid and sternum are wholly absent, "out of place" is quite an understatement! I think that it's ready, since the above problem was addressed. The mount's certainly ready for removal. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Historical mounts should never be outright removed, though, but shown in history sections instead, for example. Important fossils are often incorrectly mounted, but that doesn't make them less significant to show, it just keeps them from being taxobox material. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuandongocoelurus and Eoabelisaurus edit

  •  
  •  
  •  
    Other skeletal
  •  
    Monolophosaurus size comparison
  •  
    Monolophosaurus silhouette
  •  
    Chuandongocoelurus Silhouette
  •  
    Chuandongocoelurus Skeletal
  •  
    Chuandongocoelurus size

I have a couple restorations I have drawn from 2017 that might be useful here. One is of Chuandongocoelurus and the other of Eoabelisaurus. I also noticed that the Wiki articles for Chuandongocoelurus is using the image that I thought I sent in for a deletion request a year ago. If this restoration passes the review I'm going to go ahead and replace all articles referring to the skeletal with the restoration, because that image is just a copyrighted Hartman skeletal that doesn't belong here at all. Is there a way to put in a Speedy Deletion Request for that image, and how would I go about doing so? Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 10:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk would be the one to ask about stuff related to deletion. Also, it seems like you uploaded two Chuandongocoelurus skeletals and only one got nominated for deletion. As for your Eoabelisaurus, you've restored it with a rapidly sloping snout and four claws on the hands, both of which don't match up with the fossils or the fossils of related taxa. The eyes in both may be too big, although I'm not fully sure. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the skeletal is its so very similar in appearance to Hartman's its probably going to be deleted as a copyvio. Chuangdongo looks good, Eoabelisaurus only has the comments noted above. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the Commons image page and look at the left side under "tools", you will see "Report copyright violation", then you can add a link to the original. You can also click on the more regular "Nominate for deletion", but it will take longer, because it will require evaluation. The restorations look nice, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the Hartman skeletal for deletion and added the Chuandongocoelurus restoration to the article. The Eoabelisaurus restoration will be fixed soon. Thanks for your help and feedback! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 04:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're on the subject, perhaps this older skeletal can be retooled into something more usable. Also, the limbs seem to also be traced over Hartman's Monolophosaurus. I do have a Monolophosaurus silhouette here: [76] (in green) if it's needed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at adapting that image into a black and white standard skeletal diagram at some point. If you are able, I would love to have that Monolophosaurus silhouette. Perhaps you could upload it to Wikipedia facing the right so it could be used in cladograms, at the very least, and I can download it from there. I'll also go ahead and make a singular size diagram for both Monolophosaurus and Chuandongocoelurus with that silhouette, too. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 04:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the Monolophosaurus images. Based on Hartman, as usual. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished the skeletal, size chart, and silhouette for Chuandongocoelurus. Any changes needed? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 14:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The skeletal should have black lines separating the illium, ischium, and pubis. Right now they're all just shown as one fused unit. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made those adjustments. I'll go ahead and replace the Hartman skeletal with this file now, and add the other restorations as needed. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And while were on, err, megalosauroids, I was just wondering where the ear opening is on Paleocolour's Baryonyx image[77]? I'm not entirely sure how long the skull is in the image (no hind margin), but the line behind the eye indicates it might be drawn too short? That line is in what would be the postorbital fenestra... The nostril also seems to be very vaguely indicated. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't draw the lineart for that particular image, but if it's needed I can go in and add the ear and nose holes (or move them). Admittedly, they get lost in the scale details. Where exactly should they go? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 04:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fleshy nostril should be in the front end of the bony nostril opening, as in supposedly all tetrapods. The ear should be placed somehwere behind the quadratojugal bone, like in this muscle diagram:[78] FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the Eoabelisaurus, any other changes needed before I can add it to the article? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I think it looks good. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maraapunisaurus II edit

Hello, I created some art of Maraapunisaurus fragillimus based on the new study. Any comments?

 
New images should go at the bottom of the review page, not the top, just to let you know. Also, you should sign you posts with ~~~~ As for the image, it seems that you've based the skull on Nigersaurus, but seeing as Nigersaurus is fairly dervied, I'm not sure if this is a good idea, although I'll let other users more framiliar on the subject comment on that. Also, post images here or at WP:PALEOART before adding them to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The teeth also seem to occlude in a weird, zig-zaggy way, which is improbable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conflicted on the perspective. It's very nice to get a reconstruction that's not in the purely lateral pose, but this direct front-on angle to me makes it look like it has an extremely short neck. Anyone else? Also, did rebbachisaurs have the whip-tail like diplodocids as depicted here? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the image needs significant fixes. The head itself is rather poorly illustrated, as the eyes pop out and there are "crests" on the head and the snout is rather wide, and the teeth interlock in an odd way. The shoulders also shouldn't be as low as they are drawn, they would be about equal in height to the hips. The arms appear to articulate on the outside of the girdle, rather than underneath. And the tail would actually be longer and skinnier at the end, not quite a whip but more similar to my Haplocanthosaurus skeletal. Speaking of which, the proportions should be more similar to what's seen in Haplocanthosaurus than any derived rebbachisaur. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    Seems to have a keratinous beak?
  •  
    Doesn't seem to match the skull

Here is the rest of PaleoEquii's gallery. Some of these are definitely inaccurate and need to be updated/removed. I'm puzzled by the keratinous beak on the rebbachisaurid, considering that the only sauropod known to have such a structure is a derived titanosaur. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lavocatisaurus was suggested to have a beak, so the beak itself is not totally wrong. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 14:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lavocatisaurus yes, that’s why the beak was included. Is there anything else wrong with the Lavocatisaurus? I am aware the Zuul is incorrect, it’s an older drawing. Also, I apologize for the formatting issues. I’m not quite sure how to do this. While I’m at it, I might as well put this WIP Chirostenotes here for review while I can still fix any issues.
 

PaleoEquii 10:47, 30 October 2018 (EST)

The Balaur also has an incredibly thick leg. As for "beaks" in sauropods, something similar hals also been proposed for Nigersaurus and Cathetosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose it is pretty thick for a bird. But it was a decently large arboreal species, and it was quite stocky. As for the beak, the new discovery provides evidence that some sauropods like the ones mentioned above may have had this kind of keratin sheathe on its snout, like a pseudo-beak. PaleoEquii (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2018 (EST)
Well, since we do know how thick its legs were, we can't draw them thicker than that. Not even turkeys have legs that thick (bird legs are usually thinnest just above the ankle, unlike in the drawing, where it seems thicker?), and arboreal birds don't have particularly thick legs. Bird lower legs are mainly just muscle, skin, and tendons, until you get to the "drumstick" anyway, so they can't really be drawn much fatter than the bones imply below that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the legs aren't too far off from a standard bird leg it should be fine, we can't be sure either way. It's definitely beefy, but it doesn't seem to be to the extent of being so far off from anything else it'd have to be scrapped from the page. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the feet of an elephant bird or a moa, huge, massive birds. But well, can't find a front view of the leg bones of Balaur, so it is hard to say for sure. But if we can find such, they simply can't be depicted much thicker than the bones imply, that's just not how bird legs are structured. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I’ve seen, the legs on my Balaur illustration actually don’t seem much thicker than typically depicted. Compare the drawing with skeletal images, and you’ll find the proportions to be roughly the same. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2018 (EST)
Well, skeletal diagrams depict the legs from the side, not behind, as shown here. If you look at Jaime Headden's skeletal, the legs are thinnest just above the ankle[79], whereas it seems to be thickest there in your drawing. Even if it had really fat legs overall, they would still be thinner above the ankle than around the ankle itself, as in pretty much all other birds/theropods. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In many life restorations, like the ones by Emily Willoughby, the "width" is rather deceptive due to the presence of feathers (which are not shown in this image, although they probably should). The legs currently look more like what I'd expect for Gorgosaurus or Allosaurus and definitely should be thinner. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
Lio Lavocatisaurus
  • By the way, the alternate Gabriel Lio image that was added to the Lavocatisaurus article seems to have been added by one of the describers, Jcarballido. maybe we should just fix the sunken fenestrae? Paleocolour is one of our best image modifiers, perhaps of interest? As for the ribs being visible, not sure if that's even a problem, have a look at the white rhino. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The foot also seems to have four claws. I believe that's incorrect, unless this is a really odd sauropod. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 01:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the image and created the category for Lavocatisaurus. Let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 07:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alongwith all of the shrink wrapping, the head differs from the skull. It seems the mouth is much wider than the skull shows, and the drawing also appears to entirely lack the keratin pseudo-beak Lavocatisaurus is known to have. PaleoEquii (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (EST)
A beak doesn't need to be clearly demarcated, take a look at for example tortoises. As for "shrink wrapping", again, look at the white rhino, for example. You can clearly see the ribs and other underlying anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can see white rhino ribs, but these ones actively protrude to a larger extent, and the neural spines and scapula are extremely visible here and not at all on the rhino. I see no reason to bother with this restoration. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be too hard to fix. It is an artistically good illustration showing the full body (and added by one of the describers of the animal), so I think it's worth fixing. As for the remaining bones that are visible, they are mainly hinted at by highlights, which are easy to paint our. The style of this image is very easy to replicate in Photoshop (unlike for example a pencil drawing or 3D models). FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the shrinkwrapping problems on the image further. I intentionally left the smaller one on the ground looking emaciated, as I think that was the artists original intention to depict. It also gives a nice contrast in body types. For future note: making these kinds of image fixes are very quick to do within Photoshop and there really shouldn't be any instances of leaving images as a lost cause if it's of decent enough artistic quality. Total editing time for this piece including my previous edit has been about six minutes. For owners of Photoshop: I suggest becoming familiar with the "Spot Healing Brush" and using the Content Aware Fill mode with it. Tutorial here. There are also very useful tools such as the Puppet Warp Tool and the Warp tool that can help with changing proportions. Let me know if any other changes are needed! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, I think you'll be the go-to editor for this kind of work, because I'm still using an ancient, cracked version of CS3, which has none of the features you mention, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bambiraptor edit

Hello again. I’ve created some art of Bambiraptor that illustrates how it used its hands to grasp prey (unspecified Cretaceous mammals in this case). In my opinion it is a more accurate and appealing reconstruction compared to the reconstruction currently featured on the Bambiraptor page. Opinions?

 
As I stated in the edit summary, the wing feathers don't appear to connect to the second finger, as they should, and the head looks like that of a monitor lizard. I don't think anyone believes dromaeosaurs would have had scaly heads. Naked, maybe, but then not covered in scales (modern birds don't have scales on their heads). The head issue is debatable, though, but the wing issue is not. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve updated the file and removed the scales from the head. For context, the naked (previously scaly) portion of the head only extends a tiny bit past the lips, the rest is small feathers and skin. PaleoEquii (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2018 (EST)
Head looks better, the main issue is still the wing feather attachment. The primary feathers would have been anchored to the second finger, but you show it completely free and featherless. This diagram gives an idea of how it would have looked:[80] The Chirostenotes above has the same problem. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scipionyx Anatomical Diagram edit

Sorry to bring so much work here. Anyway, I made an anatomical diagram of Scipionyx. Only the lungs, crop, and kidneys are speculative (however, its based on extant birds, and the rest of the anatomy seems very similar to birds). Anything I need to change?

 
A speculative anatomical diagram of Scipionyx. The lungs, crop and kidneys are not preserved in the fossil, but inferred from extant bird anatomy.
What photo have you used underneath? If it is on Commons, you need to link it in the source field. If the photo is not free, we have a problem. MWAK asked for images highlighting the organs once, I believe, maybe he has some comments. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The base image of the fossil was taken from the Thai version of Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scipionyx_samniticus.JPG PaleoEquii (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2018 (EST)
That should be fine, then. But what source was the position and shape of the organs based on? That should be mentioned in the file description there. And we should not show organs not reconstructed in the reelvant published sources. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the organs are preserved or inferred by the fossil. The intestine was traced, the stomach was sort of hidden but indicated by the presence of bones (the position of which indicates it had a digestive system similar to birds), the heart, liver, and lungs were indicated by a patch of blood. The order and shape of those organs were based on birds. The trachea and esophagus were extended from the small bits preserved in the fossil. As for the speculative organs, those were based on birds. Because the rest of the anatomy is nearly identical to the setup in birds, it should be accurate. I used a few sources to accurately map out the preserved organs, mostly from scientific publications. As the slight speculation is explicitly mentioned, I don’t see it a problem that three organs were based on birds, especially because it seems to be roughly the same layout. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2018 (EST)
The problem is that WP:original research is not allowed, we can't make our own assumptions about something like that, especially when actual, published theories about it have been made. It should reflect the sources available on the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you’d like, I could provide a copy that does not include the crop, lungs and kidneys, and only the preserved part about of the organs? It’ll be a little more boring, but it’ll be free to use.PaleoEquii (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2018 (EST)
If anything I find this more useful, it's great to have a guide to what I'm looking at seeing the fossil. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great improvement compared to the previous version and very useful. There is, if we adhere to the 2011 study (see e.g. p. 131), one obvious mistake: what you indicate as the rectum is a preserved part of the musculus puboischiofemoralis. The real rectum was large, is represented by the large bulge above the ischia (called "intestines" in your drawing), and perhaps opened obliquely to above and behind as shown by faecal remains. Perhaps the cloaca was instead low as suggested by the 2011 study but in any case it was not preserved. The image could also be improved by naming the intestine tract directly below the posterior dorsals the jejunum as it was identified by the 2011 study. The entire large loop lower in the belly is part of the duodenum as well.--MWAK (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was thrown off by that as well. I fixed it, and also added the feces with a label. PaleoEquii 11:27, 1 November 2018 (EST)
Looks very good now. I'll add it immediately to the nl: version :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable evidence for a crop in nonavian dinosaurs. Hongshangornis and Sapeornis are the most basal birds with crops and they probably acquired it independently. Functionally the crop also serves zero practical purpose for a taxon which is not eating seeds. 128.189.218.76 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The crop is an organ useful for many bird species regardless of diet. It is present for storing food in vultures, doves, and eagles, to name a few. I’m not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that it’s not useful for anything else? Additionally, while the crop could have independently evolved in those two species, it may be more likely that it had evolved in a lineage of non avian dinosaurs before the group split. PaleoEquii (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2018 (EST)
The problem is that our own interpretations are, again, WP:original research, which is not allowed. We should strictly follow what has been published. And please, don't add images before they have passed review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images by Jaime Headden edit

Hello again. Many of Wikipedia's skeletal restorations have been provided by Jamie Headden, but there are other restorations in his image gallery that are also under the CC 3.0 license that we might be able to use. I think we should send him a message asking for permission to use these. These are a few I have come across that would be quite excellent to have for their respective articles, listed below. I am easily able to remove the watermark for these if needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 12:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has actually given permission to use all his online skeletals already, we just need to copy the permission from the other uploads (of skeletals) to the new images. As for the life restoration images on Deviantart which are already under a free licence, we wouldn't have to ask, but those watermarks would have to be removed... FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the first restoration of Torosaurus to show what I can do in terms of removing the watermark. Let me know if I should go ahead and do the rest. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! The signatures should probably also be removed. The Edmontosaurus is a bit unorthodox (no comb, no cheeks), based on Headden's personal, unpublished ideas, so I'm not sure if we should use it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While the lack of a comb is questionable, the lack of cheeks is actually the consensus now, thanks to Nabavizadeh 2018 and their work on Ornithischian Oral Mudculature. It appears that animals like Edmontosaurus largely lacked cheeks, as depicted by this drawing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30332723/ PaleoEquii 11:20, 1 November 2018 (EST)
Seems to be a cheek muscle which is found improbable. But cheek can also mean just any structure covering the side of the jaw opening, like in the California condor. The paper says: "With the new muscle reconstruction proposed here mainly for ceratopsians (especially ceratopsids), ankylosaurs, and iguanodontians, however, the proposed musculature in these more derived ornithischians are not analogous to mammalian cheeks, but are merely acting somewhat like ―cheeks‖as an epiphenomenon of reorganization and expansion of the mAME complex". So the paper doesn't actually argue against there being any kind of skin at the side of the mouth, just that it wouldn't have been analogous to mammalian cheek muscles (see muscle reconstructions in the paper). FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some more restorations to the gallery. I'll continue adding more as time permits. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Atopodentatus image was created while it was still considered to be "zipper-faced". While this feature was obscured in the drawing (most likely by skin, knowing Headden's style), I still don't think the proportions would be able to pass by the newer "vacuum-cleaner" face. The Therizinosaurus and Eurhinosaurus look good apart from the giant watermark, do you think we could request for a clean version? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November Week 1 edit

I'm going to see what it takes to make 31 size charts in 31 days! Here's the first one: Riojasaurus. Our current comparison is very inaccurate and not even in a full lateral view. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better, but that's as much as I can say, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looks about right, and probably as accurate as it can be barring the new "chimaera" paper I think. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it as soon as I can. Here's a Panphagia for day two. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 21:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Melanorosaurus for day 3. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dongbeititan, Hexing, Crittendenceratops edit

  •  
    Dongbeititan being hunted by Yutyrannus
  •  
    Crittendenceratops reconstruction
  •  
    Hexing qingyi emerging from the mist

I bring you 3 illustrations. The first two were created digitally. The first one was not made with fine details on the animals in mind, more so as a view from above showing them hunting (meant for the Dongbeititan page). As for Crittendenceratops, it doesn't have an english wikipage yet. PaleoEquii (talk 18:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The eye of the Crittendenceratops is a bit too large, and the nostril should be placed at the front of the bony nostril, per Witmer. The jugal horn doesn't seem to be discernible. That Hexing looks extremely robust for an ornithomimisaur, almost thought it was supposed to be a therizinosaur. As for Yutyrannus, I'm pretty sure the skull is much narrower than indicated by the distance between the eyes of one individual there. This isn't Tyrannosaurus, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All are decent, but I agree, the Hexing is too wide in the torso, the Crittendenceratops could use some more shading, and the Dongbeititan/Yutyrannus is slightly simplistic but might be alright for a paleoenvironment restoration. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I agree he Hexing is a bit thick. I can’t fix that, but once I fix the Ytyrannus and Dongbeititan, where should I put it if not the Dongbeititan article? Also, fixed the Crittendenceratops. PaleoEquii 19:53, 6 November 2018 (EST)
Once the Yutyrannus article is expanded, it would be a nice fit for the palaeoecology section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Megaraptor image edit

 

This image was uploaded about a week ago, and needs review before it can appear on the Megaraptor article. That being said, it looks pretty good to me. The light amount of filaments, elongated skull, and slender build all seem accurate. Some may object to how the third finger is barely visible, but that seems to be a trait common to megaraptorans as well as Gualicho. I also still think that the Aerosteon image reviewed a little while ago is worthy of approval. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The right hand appears to be supinated though, which was as unlikely as pronation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gualicho seems unlikely to be a Megaraptoran as in most cases that seems to be a case of excluding Abelisauroids in phylogenies. Even so, definite Megaraptorans such as Australovenator (AODF 604) have a much larger third digit so I would make that larger. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megaraptor itself preserved a complete hand with a puny third digit (Calvo et al., 2004)[81]. It might just be me, but I can see a small third digit in the left hand, although that of the right hand is obscured by filaments. Also, while the hypothesis that Gualicho is a ceratosaur is not outlandish, I'll withhold judgement until it's brought up in a peer reviewed context. There's obviously some long branch attraction going on somewhere between noasaurids, Deltadromaeus, Gualicho, and megaraptorans. As for the supinated hand, I should note that megaraptorans are actually very unusual among theropods in regards to their high level of forearm flexibility. Studies such as White et al. (2015) have shown that at least Australovenator had the ability to move its radius and ulna independently of each other[82]. According to Senter & Robins (2005), "Pronation and supination (in theropods) are precluded by immobility of the radius relative to the ulna"[83]. While White et al never used the terms "pronate" or "supinate" in their study, they did clearly show that megaraptorans did not possess the immobile radius of other theropods, and that they had a range of mobility in their forearms rivaling that of dromaeosaurids, which are known to have been capable of supination (Senter, 2006)[84]. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fig. 4 does show something like pronation, not supination, though. Senter says "Supination and pronation cannot occur by movement of the radius, which is immobile relative to the ulna. The palms therefore face medially except during wrist extension, which causes obligatory supination." I wonder what wrist extension means here, and if it looks like this drawing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the figure doesn't show supination. However, supination and pronation are typically performed independently of the two poses shown in the image, which were complete extension and flexion of the forearm. Moderate pronation just seems to be a side effect of flexion. While dromaeosaurid and megaraptoran forelimbs were not perfect analogues (for example, megaraptorans were capable of a higher degree of pronation), it is clear that a necessity for prey capture was the main drive behind their convergent adaptations. It seems reasonable to assume that megaraptorans were also capable of supination due to these shared specializations. Studies such as Otero et al. (2017) have shown that Senter's guidelines for flexibility are actually slightly underestimated due to assumptions about shoulder orientation [85], so I don't really think that the hand is inaccurate enough to justify turning down an image that otherwise seems ideal. I'd even be fine with slight pronation as shown by White et al.'s figure. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks pretty fine in general, could maybe benefit from increased contrast and getting the lower border cropped out. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Gualicho is a Megaraptoran or not, it should be noted that Gualicho has much smaller arms in proportion to all other Megaraptorans, including Megaraptor itself which you are trying to reconstruct. Therefore, you should base the proportions of the hand on Megaraptorans with similar such proportions, such as Australovenator, which has three very visible fingers. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hand's proportions shouldn't be reconstructed based on Australovenator, because Megaraptor itself already has a complete hand with different proportions. Gualicho and Australovenator are non-factors in hand proportions, although Australovenator is useful for other reasons due to being the subject for studies on flexibility. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Megaraptor also preserves a larger 3rd digit than in your drawing. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The third digit looks to be the right size to me. The one on the right hand is obscured and the one on the left seems visible to me. Also, it's not my drawing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spondylosoma edit

 
Skeletal restoration showing known material of Spondylosoma with a mostly hypothetical outline by Jaime Headden
 

The outline of Spondylosoma in this illustration is quite outdated because the recovery of Spondylosoma as a member of Aphanosauria by Nesbitt et al. (2017) means that Spondylosoma out to be depicted as a quadrupedal animal (Galton 2000 is right that Spondylosoma is non-dinosauriform).Extrapolaris (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Should be easy to fix, if someone is up for it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the forelimbs of File:Macelognathus vagans.jpg could just be copy-pasted onto this one? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a lot more lanky than what Teleocrater would indicate. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably give a shot at this. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've whipped up a new diagram in a separate file, we might as well keep both in case of further changes to phylogeny. Based on Teleocrater so proportions are a lot different now. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buriolestes edit

Hello again. This time I bring another simple drawing of a head and this time is the recent saurischian dinosaur Buriolestes. Any comment? [86] Levi bernardo (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the fossil[87], seems only some of the teeth are visible in the drawing, when they are really not that different in length? Personally, I'd restore the entire animal, when so little of the skull is known anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The illustration does not show all the teeth because it adds some speculative lips to the way of Gregory S. Paul. But I just killed the idea with that study in Daspletosaurus. Well, I say that if know enough of the skull, but it is also a good idea to enlighten the whole body, when I have time I will do it. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, but even with the lips, it seems more teeth would be poking out? Most of the other teeth aren't that much shorter than the ones you show, so they would not be completely hidden. In any case, we don't know whether the no-lip hypothesis extends to all dinosaur groups, or whether it will be supported by others... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Even with lips, the lips would not selectively hide some teeth. It would hide all the teeth equally unless they are different lengths. This way just makes it look like a lot of teeth are missing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's true. So, do you suggest that I put full lips? Levi bernardo (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think, like me, that he says you hide the teeth unevenly. Now some teeth that would actually poke out are completely hidden, based on where they are compared to the teeth you show. See for example what I mean here:[88] The teeth also seem too straight. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'll expose this kid's teeth a little and correct all this soon. Thank you Levi bernardo (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as the saying goes; "It's better late than never". So here I have a better and edited image of [89] the teeth are now seen, I will also have another version with lips. How is it now? Levi bernardo (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I don't have anything to add on it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks better. It seems that the two largest teeth are more curved backwards in the fossil, though. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. Yes, I am editing those details, then I upload the final version. Levi bernardo (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
Finally
  • I uploaded the image to commons a few weeks ago, but I just finished fixing the detail of the teeth. The image has transpartent background, I'm not sure if this is good, I've only seen a few digital reconstructions by Emily Willoughby that are in that format and that are also on Wikimedia Commons [90] What do you think of them now? Also, is it okay if it is with the transparent background? or do I change it? Levi bernardo (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Unfortunately", a new skeleton with a more complete skull has just been described, and it seems the skull is reconstructed somewhat differently (see fig. 3): doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zly009 I think the format is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I've been disconnected from the new news, haha. The skull looks interesting and provides new information about the skull of the basal sauropodomorphs, but it is obviously flattened. Well, I'll have to modify the image so that I completely agree with the new skull. Ok it's fine, thanks for solving my question. Levi bernardo (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Levi bernardo This is probably a bit late of a pin but I'd rather not archive it until we have a solid conclusion. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(More) Morrison Size Comparisons edit

  Stale
  •  
    Tanycolagreus
  •  
    Ornitholestes
  •  
    All of them!

I'm back with more Morrison dinos, including the Tanycolagreus from the above section, which is pretty far up now. Here's an Ornitholestes to kick off the next batch. It would appear that Torvosaurus needs a new scale diagram, too, so I'll be happy to provide it with one as soon as I finish up with the coelurosaurs. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the coelurosaur size comparison, but Stokesosaurus came out at ~6 meters, at least 2 meters bigger than the largest estimate (I used Hartman's skeletal as a source). Coelurus came out at ~3 meters (using Headden's skeletal), 1 meter longer than estimated. Any advice? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps scale based on a known limb bone and its measurement? the femur is probably best, or the tibia. If you get within ~a half meter of published estimates that's fine because proportional differences can account for that Slate Weasel. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slate Weasel any word on this now that you're done with the November diagrams? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shrunk down Stokesosaurus the weirdly big Coelurus should be acceptable [P:2.5m]. I will upload it shortly. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. Also, on the subject of the Morrison, how big should Alcovasaurus be (in the Week 5 section)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I think a jumping Coelurus is a nice touch, if we are going to go along with it the arm should most definitely not be as statically posed. Either straightened forwards or straightened rearwards. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zalmoxes skull reconstruction edit

 
 
 

Looks an looks like a generic basal iguanodont, which is unlike pretty much all other reconstructions of the skull I've seen. The other reconstructions are pretty consistent like that of Scott Hartman's new reconstruction or the one in Weishampel et al 2003, second and third images are of a skeletal mount in Brussels and are for comparison with the first image, I don't have any qualms with those.Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the known material. Going by the wiki skull, the known material can't determine exactly what the skull looked like, and I'm fairly sure I've seen things close to the wiki skull before, I'll go looking. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent paper on Zalmoxes I can find, entitled "A catalog of Zalmoxes (Dinosauria, Ornithopoda) specimens from the Upper Cretaceous Nălaț-Vad locality, Hațeg Basin, Romania" (2017) uses the Scott Hartman reconstruction, and includes new skull material, which seems more congruous with Hartman and Weishampel et al style reconstruction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this one a shot. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahakala skeletal restoration edit

  Done

 

The outline of the skeletal restoration of Mahakala is outdated because its shows serrated teeth in the jaws and long arms, and the assignment of Mahakala to Halszkaraptorinae makes clear that the genus had stubby arms and a head similar to a duck, like Halszkaraptor.Extrapolaris (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Most of the length of the arm there is represented by preserved material though? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should be easy to fix the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm fixing all the other skeletals I might as well go for this one. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point to correcting this image, as the skull already looks similar to Halzkaraptor but not identical, which should be good enough for a probable relative. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This section should be clear to archive. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Tyrannosauridae size comparison edit

  Stale
 
Current diagram
 
Proposed diagram

While I'm at it, here's one to replace that ugly thing on the tyrannosaurid article. If there's no inaccuracies, should I change it to fit the format that the current image on the article has? (Without the numbers or labels on the actual svg, using the links instead) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The albertosaurines are obviously based on skeletal mounts, since their teeth are falling out. See the skeletals by Paul. I think that Lusotitan said the GetAwayTrike's skeletals weren't reliable sometime back (I think that it was for Fred's Carcharodontosaurus). Also, we vectorized Matt's size comparison, but I realized that all five tyrannosaurids have the exact same postcranium, which was not the case. I will check the proportions on your diagram more thoroughly sometime soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GetAwayTrike's skeletals are accurate to the fossils but they don't account for crushing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot about the Princeton Field Guide skeletals. Just cross-checked them against GetAwayTrike's and some of the proportions are definitely different, going to have to remake those two silhouettes tomorrow based on Paul then. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was any more work on this ever done? It's a very useful diagram. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Princeton field guide so I might remake those Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus silhouettes tomorrow, personal affairs have kept me very busy recently though... Are the other silhouettes (T.rex, Tarbo and Daspleto) accurate? Slate Weasel said he was going to check their proportions. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the other three skeletals that you based them on should be pretty good references. It seems like Randomdinos also has skeletals for the albertosaurines: [91] [92] --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map of tyrannosauroid discoveries edit

  Stale
 
Map of tyrannosauroid finds.

A new version of this map needs to be uploaded to reflect the recognition of Proceratosaurus as an early tyrannosauroid, and the discoveries of Kileskus and Juratyrant.Extrapolaris (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Santanaraptor and Timimus as well. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those taxa are fragmentary, and given that the main paper hasn't come out yet, and they haven't been included in other analyses of Tyrannosauroidea, they should probably be given a question mark until other workers have given their opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; though it's a bit undefined as to what the question mark means here, is it indicative of uncertainty in the dating, uncertainty in whether it's a tyrannosauroid? Or whether it's a eutyrannosaur or not? It needs to be on the legend. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Santanaraptor has been found as a tyrannosauroid before (Novas 2013 and Poifiri 2018). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Santanaraptor being a basal tyrannosauroid, given the number of analyses and consistent position. However Timimus is genuinely questionable, in one of the phylogenies in the new paper, it came out as being as sister taxon to Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus, which is hilariously ridiculous and shows how phylogenetically unstable it is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's geographic position is extremely important though, it should be included someway or another. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, what I meant in that comment is that I don't necessarily mind Santanaraptor not having a question mark (though I think it should), but Timimus definitely needs a question mark, both should definitely be included on the map. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map should incorporate the discovery of Dynamoterror, the second early Campanian tyrannosaurid from western North America.Extrapolaris (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
The fixes suggested here should be easy for somebody to do, anybody willing? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorized Parksosaurus Scale Chart edit

 

Here is a SVG version of my scale chart which I intend to swap with the old version. The old version was just scaled to be about 2.5m long, however, this new one is scaled to published femur measurement and comes out slightly larger. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it does't just happen to me. Looks fine to me, although the overlapping hands do look sort of odd. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, funny you did this. I've started working on improving the Thescelosaurus article, and was going the request a new diagram for it once I looked into whether the given size estimate holds up. The current one is hunched over, making it look smaller than it is, and it's unclear which species is, when there's three and T. garbanii seems to have been a little larger. I'm thinking of put in both T. neglectus and T. garbanii. If you're on parksosaurs anyway, perhaps you could also make that? Maybe a combined diagram with Thescelosaurus, Parksosaurus, and Orodromeus? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the arm looks funny, I had a quick play in the inkscape file to move the hands away from each other, although it just now looks like it has weird arms lol. I will certainly look into adding Thescelosaurus and Orordromeus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just in the middle of gathering info etc, I'm not sure how the layout should look? Here is a very crude concept using Parkososaurs just to block it out, [93] Whilst it would need much more refinement, better cropping etc, the idea would be the two Thescelosaurus species along the top with Parksosaurus and Orodromeus along the bottom. I think the four in a line will make for a very elongated canvas unless I were to overlap them. Maybe just the three genera in a line with the two Thescelosaurus species overlapping? Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two line idea is good, but maybe have a human silhouette on each line as well? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, It's been a while because I was waiting to hear back from Hartman about using his Orodromeus skeletal. In the Wikipedia article it states that Horner & Weishampel estimate it at 2.5 metres, so similar to Parksosaurus. It seems, however, that that size is for a hypothetical adult. The largest specimen that has been described seems to be MOR 473. Using the image of MOR 473's ulna in Scheetz thesis, and the weird 'graph' of vertebral measurments (yes, it has a graph of measurments) it suggests a length somewhere around 1.3m, give or take. Paul lists adult size not certain and in his mass estimate table the femur measurement listed also suggests a small size for known specimens. There is also this skeletal here [94]. Unfortunately I can't find any published estimates that specifically state the size of known specimens so it's going to be weird for the viewer of the article when they read 2.5m but see a tiny silhouette in the size chart. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a new version with Orodromeus added. [95] Due to the small size of Orodromeus I'm probably going to rearrange the layout again. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the layout you might not actually need the double row after all (since the Thescelosaurus are so big compared to the others). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to new layout [96] Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good but it needs a scalebar, presumably of one or two metres. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, added the scalebar. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lanzhousaurus edit

 

This reconstruction of Lanzhousaurus is currently being used in the article, but it's wholly inadequate. The arms are way too tiny for a styracosternan, the hands are too primitive in their anatomy, the lumpy feet aren't even in the right ballpark, the proportions are generally a tad off, and the skull, which would be long and giant, is distinctly short and small. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a skeletal diagram it could be fixed after? FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One on DeviantArt is the only one I know of, and from what I've been told it's not the most reliable thing ever. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, as long as there is something I can base it on, I think it would be pretty easy. But as is, I'm kind of in the dark as for what exact proportions it should have. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With how inaccurate this is and the lack of good references for the taxon I think it's better just to not bother with it and archive this section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huaxiagnathus edit

 

I decided to make my own image of Huaxiagnathus and I wanted to know whether it is accurate.

I went for a more simplistic art style, because it's easier to edit the image, especially if *shudder* I have to redo the entire thing. Anyway, does it look good enough, or should I change anything? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 19:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The colors are very bright (especially the blue feet), do you think you can factor in some browns and patterning? Ground birds are always a good basis for coloration. That said, I can't really find anatomical issues, so it looks fine otherwise, I think. Certainly better than the old recon. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anything else? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 20:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the eye is too large, the claws are very roughly shaped, and the left foot is too thin at the ankle and toes. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is something very wrong with the leg, it seems like the ankle is in different places on each leg. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And is it just me or does the tarsus seem to bend backwards? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Compared with the Hartman skeletal[97], the leg proportions seem to be a bit of a mess in general. The hands are also too small. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how big should the hands be? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 19:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As with everything else, look at the skeletal and make sure everything has the same proportions in relation to each other. Compared to for example the length of the head. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 19:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see the Hartman skeletal, it seems clear that there is still quite a lot of work to be done. For example, the hands are really weird with the claws looking like noodles on the right hand especially. The first finger is too long (the second should be the longest) and I still have no idea why the skin is blue. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proportions are still way off compared to the skeletal, and the ankles are not in the same position. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the hands and the ankle, and desaturated the blue. Anything more? (The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 09:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proportions still don't add up, I'd recommend overlaying Hartman's skeletal in an image editing programme and tweaking accoridngly. FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yunnanosaurus Once Again edit

 

How accurate are these two skeletals: [98] and [99]? If so, it might be worth renovating this old size comparison of mine. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those changes to proportions would definitely be improvements (the skeleta in the original description is similar so I would say its good for proportions). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been done. Any problems? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 16:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images by Nobu Tamura (2018) edit

Hello again, it's that time of the year! Nobu has many new restorations on his website, and I think it would well worth while adding them to their appropriate articles. I have asked for his permission on his Wikimedia page, and I'll start uploading images once I get confirmation. I'll list them in a gallery above for review here as I go. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All his newer images specifically state they have a free license, so it should be no problem. The main hurdle is uploading them all and editing out signatures. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the first wave of images. There are a few here that do not have an article on Wikipedia or category on Wikimedia Commons yet, so those will have to be created at some point. I will list more images here as I go. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ledumahadi seems to have claws on the fourth and fith finger, which it probably shouldn't. I've added a few more which have never been reviewed either; I have corrected errors in some of them already. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the claws on the Ledumahadi restoration, and have uploaded some more images. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
Homalocephale
Well, this image is from last year but I think it also needs to be revised. I have corrected some aspects of the image. Something to suggest before uploading? [100]--Levi bernardo (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The calf of the leg seems a bit weird and pointy, it shouldn't "stop" that far from the thigh. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of NT's images have wonky limbs, so it may be worth going through them and fixing the ones with these sorts of problems. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more (wonky limbs fixed). There are still a lot to go, someone should really trawl through and upload them all one day... FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
Monsieur X already changed it from an unlikely light green to blue
  • Speaking of NT's drawings, a new study just showed that the ichthyosaur Stenopterygius was counter shaded, darker on the back than on its belly.[101] NT's old image hints at this, but the lower part still seems too dark to show it properly. Do you think you can work your magic on the image, Paleocolour? FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the countershading. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 01:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, the smooth look also looks more probable. Now we won't have anyone trying to remove it as inaccurate, phew... FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November Week 2 edit

I'm continuing my 31-day mission with some sauropods. First off is Shunosaurus, based on Hartman (with some small details based on Paul). Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 21:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. But the tail might need a bit more length, and a more visible club. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better, or is more length needed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life suddenly became a lot busier, but I nevertheless managed to squeeze in enough time to make this Rapetosaurus. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both look good from my view. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like an overly sunken antorbital fenestra? FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might go and fix it sometime (not very) soon, but if anyone wants to, feel free to take a stab at fixing it earlier. Here's a Malawisaurus for day six, by the way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome work so far! Here's an edit I made of a nice Patagosaurus restoration we had to replace the old Shunosaurus image you were commenting on. Let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern is a bit too obvious and on-the-nose, and the skull isn't the correct shape. It would be lower and have almost no concavity on the top of the snout. There are plenty of reconstructions online showing the correct skull. Regarding Malawisaurus, there are some things that look wrong. The neck and back look too angular in outline, and I'm fairly sure the back should be horizontal or almost horizontal. The arms also look too small and the limb poses just look odd. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's a fourth foot claw in both this image and the original Patagosaurus. I think that I found a better skeletal:[102]. Hartman's apparently omitted a cervical and restored it as a lognkosaur, which is now no longer supported. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wonder if the colour scheme could be changed a bit in the former Patagosaurus to make it less obvious that it's a modification? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the updated version of Malawisaurus based on Zach Armstong's (Paleozoologist) skeletal. The proportions are so different I'm wondering how Hartman's skeletal got it so wrong. Comments on this version? I'll try to get in Cetiosaurus tomorrow, but life's on the verge of becoming chaotic, so I can't guarantee anything :( --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)::[reply]
The new Malawisaurus certainly looks better for proportions. I am glad to see you used your own soft tissue, as Armstrongs is very very very minimal. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the head and changed the colours of the Shunosaurus image edit. Is that better? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's Bricksmashtv4's skeletal diagram of Apatosaurus louisae to add to our collection of sauropods. As soon as I get time, I'll revamp my Barosaurus, Nigersaurus, and Cedarosaurus size comparisons. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 01:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally managed to get my Cetiosaurus completed. Headden's usage of Jobaria to restore its skull is rather strange in my opinion, considering that the two are proportionately pretty different, so I used a different head. Comments? I'll add the Malawisaurus and Apatosaurus to their articles now if no one minds. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I was 16 minutes late... ah well... still November seventh in my time zone... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the different skull, and it looks pretty good. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I was late. Here are two mroe size charts. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second week is over, and I've chosen to end it with a bang (a bang called Xinjiangtitan ;) ). This was a fun one to make, since I had to use three separate skeletal reconstructions to get the entire animal. Week Three will be for stinkin' theropods. Corrections on other sauropod charts that I've made will appear above as I make them. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nigersaurus is updated (and shouting in the human's ear). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More research shows that Cedarosaurus must shrink! It seems that Hartman got the scale bar wrong again: [103] (I may even have to redo the entire thing sometime... >_<). Here's the smaller and correcter version for the moment. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the "OR trash" from my Futalognkosaurus size comparison. Turns out that it might be even smaller: [104] (>_<). We'll see what happens when the paper comes out... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads)
Finally fixed the foot on my first-ever image in an FA: Opisthocoelicaudia. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 16:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my incredibly ancient Alamosaurus silhouette with something that actually looks less cheesy and cartoony. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the silhouettes look good. Paleocolour I think the Shunosaurus is good, all that remains is to remove the fourth claw on the foot (Patagosaurus lacked it as well, if you could fix that one it would be much appreciated). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed the Patagosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 01:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though it's nice to have as backup, I'm not sure an adittional size diagram really fits in the Nigersaurus article when we already have the comparison shown in the history section; the article is overloaded with images, and the current position of the new diagram under the taxobox makes the description section pretty crammed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoart Bundle edit

Sorry for making this page even larger, but I’m just trying to improve some of the art. Anyway, here are 6 illustrations. They are meant to be used in the specific articles linked below them. Comments? PaleoEquii (talk 14:12, 8 November 2018 (EST)

Generally looks good, but it seems the ceratpsians and the Carno have very forward facing eyes (and the Carno's head seems too wide). Like earlier, the jugal horn of the right ceratopsian is invisible due to lack of shading. The wings of the dromaeosaur look better, but the mammals it is holding look pretty wonky. FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the head on the Carnotaurus bothered me as well. I cropped the head out, emphasizing the turtle. PaleoEquii 23:40, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Shouldn't be too hard to warp its head into shape? Now it looks a bit weird that a dinosaur which is partially cropped out should take so much space in an image that's supposed to show a turtle. So I'd either fix the head or remove the dinosaur completely. FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve updated the Carno again. I warped the head to more slip, and improved the eyes. Anything else? I must say, it is much easier to fix digital. I can push and pull anatomy until it fits exactly with the skull. I did that for the Kapro, and compared the Scipionyx with its skull, as well as the lad reconstruction. The new Scipionyx fits perfectly to the skull, while the old one doesn’t account for squishing/crushing of the fossil skull. I’ll be back later on next week with a load of art from the Yixian, including Dilong and much more. “Friends of the Yixian project”. PaleoEquii 8:42, 9 November 2018 (EST)

November Week 3 edit

Week three will be the week of theropods. Here's a Falcarius for today, not sure that I'm totally happy with it. Sorry for adding this relatively late in the day, I was distracted by the concept of doing skeletals for Dreadnoughtus and Notocollosus (although since we don't need these they're really low priority). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 21:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The skull of the Masiakasaurus has a weird shape compared to most reconstructions, but I can let that slide considering the points Scott Hartmann has made about the taxon. What's more weird is how the fourth finger of the hand is barely visible. I'd expect it to be the shortest finger, but not vestigial. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Enlarged it a bit. However, it does seem like Paul, Hartman and Headden all restore it very small. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 13:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now the question is... can I do carcharodontosaurids fast (considering that my old carchar project went at a snail's pace)? Here's an Eocarcharia that's just my Acrocanthosaurus colored blue with a different head. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing that Torvosaurus has had its size comparison removed quite awhile ago, I've been waiting for a chance to compile this size comparison, and I've decided to take it now. All of the theropods above are blue for completely unrelated reasons. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The colours don't quite look different enough, and the labels are a bit too small to be readable at most sizes. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Enlarged labels and made the bigger torvosaur orange. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moganopterus and Dilong edit

 
Moganopterus
 
Dilong

Some Yixian animals. While the Moganopterus article has no illustration, the one on the Dilong article is in need of a replacement.PaleoEquii 12:53, 12 November 2018 (EST)

The Dilong could need an ear of some sort. Why are the legs and tail cropped out? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They weren’t drawn in the first place, is it required? I can add the ear, but I’m not sure about the tail and feet. As for the Moganopterus, anything wrong there? PaleoEquii 13:10, 12 November 2018
Both animals could use more obvious/more fuzz than they currently have. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, dense filaments would be better. It's kind of hard to make out what kind of integument is most prominent on the Dilong, given the spotty coloration. If it's thin filaments with the skin showing through, they need to be thicker, like mammal fur. If it's thick filaments with no skin, then why does it have such bright colors and complex patterns? Given how the Morganopterus looks, the former seems to be the more likely case. In that case, floof it up! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I might also request, can you make sure your restorations are either on a white background or have some kind of environment around them? Your Moganopterus is great, but the gradient background currently on Dilong really distracts from the creature itself and looks a little gaudy! I also would perhaps ask that you try and restore your creatures with semi-plausible colourations, of which Dilong is great, but Moganopterus seems somewhat out-there with that magenta colouration. I can't think of many creatures that display such a vivid colour outside of coral reef fish and butterflies... Feel free to prove me wrong though! Great work you are doing here, however. You're improving with each piece. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 04:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of colouration, I'm pretty sure it's physically impossible for proto-feathers and down to be bright blue. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the skin was blue, and the feathers were not. Similar to your own Xixiasaurus. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, the blue spots are on the back too, so unless it has weird bare patches, it would be implied it was the feathers (by the way, troodonts had vaned feathers, it seems). FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reddish colour on the Moganopterus comes from flamingos, since they schared a similar lifestyle. Flamingos get their colour from their food, so why not Moganopterus? PaleoEquii 12:43, 13 November 2018 (EST)
Well, flamingos are a special case. They have special metabolic pathways to transfer pigments from food into feathers. This is also the case for spoonbills and ibises. However, these pathways are not known to exist for skin, and even in the case of feathers the ability is limited to only a tiny fraction of bird species. Hence why whales and ducks aren't bright pink despite having similar diets to flamingos. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would work differently with primitive pterosaur pycnofibres than with modern bird feathers. I guess that's also why downy flamingoes are white. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all true that carotenoids cannot be sequestered in bare skin; Egyptian vultures use them to color their faces, for instance. However, it's quite right that we don't know whether pterosaurs ever evolved the ability to store them in pycnofibers. Albertonykus (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the colour to a grey on the Moganopterus restoration, hope that clears this up. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 02:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve changed the colour again, this time to a more yellowish brown colour. Maybe this is more accurate? If not, what colours should I use? PaleoEquii (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally browns, yellows, reds, whites, blacks, and greys are all acceptable. Green is generally accepted too, though you might have to take into account that in the modern day there are very few large green animals, and it might be argued that the case was the same for dinosaurs. I'd also look at dinosaurs that we know we have colours for, such as Borealopelta, which show a reddish colour and countershading, or Psittacosaurus which shows brown colour, countershading, and a lattice pattern on its hide. Most modern larger animals do not have bright colouration, or have only small patches of vivid colours, so that might influence your colouring too. Regarding this restoration, I think the colour you have chosen is fine. The pinkish colouration could work if it were much more muted and desaturated, perhaps, but this new colour works even better. Always try and keep in mind if your colours would actually make sense in the real world, and what the colouration would do for the animal in terms of its behaviour. For a flier such as Moganopterus countershading might be good for camouflage, with a dash of colour on its crest. I hope this helps in the future! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 04:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the Dilong, we still need to get rid of those blue protofeathers. Or at least remove the ones form the back, which would hardly have bare patches of skin like that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More skeletals from User:Bricksmashtv4 edit

Plenty more skeletal diagrams here now. All uploaded just now. From the looks of it none are way out there inaccurate, but I'm also not sure if any are too close for comfort to other peoples skeletals. The Alcovasaurus, Titanoceratops, Haestasaurus, Chasmosaurus and Australodocus look fully unique, the Supersaurus is similar to Nima's but looks totally redrawn with significantly different proportions, the Pycnonemosaurus, Leinkupal and Duriatitan look similar in silhouette but different to skeletals existing already, and the Deinonychus looks similar yet different to some existing skeletals. Labelling looks a bit extensive but is also informative. Have at it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Supersaurus above; there is a humerus in the BYU Supersaurus material which was rejected by Lovelace et. al. 2005 for being too long compared to other diplodocids and the skeletal above is assuming that assessment is incorrect. Whilst I idea is interesting to think about I'm not sure it's wise to show on Wikipedia, unless the idea catches on in the published literature.Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The silhouettes on the Deinonychus need some fixes, largely on the hands and feet, and some parts of the Deinonychus sp. skeletals are overly detailed in a way that's inconsistent with the rest of the skeleton, e.g. the skull bones, which makes the diagram much harder on the eyes than such things should be (Though I've already told Bricksmash this...). Also, they seem to pull a lot of their understanding of macronarians from Paleo-King (aka Nima), who has some... let's say controversial views on sauropod phylogeny, so I've heard. So I'd advise being hesitant with those skeletals. --TKWTH (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these also look very similar to formerly published skeletals. Can't find Hartman's originally posed Deinonychus, but I think it as very similar. The Supersaurus also seems extremely similar to that of Paleoking (what a name)[105], just with a slightly different posture... FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Duriatitan has the SAME body, tail, limb, and skull proportions and position of Paleoking's Giraffatitan, and the neck is in the same position, even if elongated a bit. Also, why do we have two? The Leinkupal silhouette is identical to Fanoy's Galeamopus skeletal. Steve's comment on Supersaurus also applies to Australodocus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 13:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these should be nominated for deletion as copyright violations, I already did that for the Supersaurus... The rest are suspect for the same reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From an accuracy standpoint, the Haestasaurus skeletal is problematic because Haestasaurus is considered these days to be a camarasaurid-like dinosaur, which this long-necked and shallow-snouted silhouette is not. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a consequence of Brick's aforementioned fringe views on phylogeny; they considered Haestasaurus part of a grouping sister to Titanosauria and Camarasauridae to be related to turiasaurs outside of Neosauropoda altogether, at least according to their cladogram on DeviantArt. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
NEW Skeletal reconstruction of Pycnonemosaurus nevesi using Carnotaurus as a guide.
Wait, WHAT? This Apatosaurus skeletal probably should also be reviewed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked around online and couldn't find a Carnotaurus silhouette similar to the one used in the Pycnonemosaurus skeletal, so I've gone ahead and made tweaks such as simplifying it and removing the horns off the brow. I expanded the article for Pycnonemosaurus a little the other day, and from the description the diagram looks accurate. Let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 02:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, although the recent hyoid study argues against the tongue being raised like that. I also found a PDF of the original paper, all the bones look to be the right shapes and sizes as the published illustrations. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've lowered the tongue and added the image to the article. Thanks! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 08:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauls and Remakes edit

While I update my Yunannosaurus, I have a fewlot of proposals to improve our current theropod size comparisons.

  1. Deltadromeus: This one's by me. The methods I used to build it were seriously terrible, which was warping an Allosaurus (Allosaurus?!) to appear more gracile and mean. Deltadromeus is notorious for being ridiculously unstable in classification (for an animal known from a large amount of fossil material), and even the discovery of a close relative, Gualicho, has done little to put out the Deltadromeus fire. Currently it seems to be classified as in Noasauridae. I found a skeletal by PWNZ3R-Dragon of this taxon, and I am wondering if it is accurate enough to be used to alter the proportions of my current size comparison. Skeletal found here: [106]
  2. Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, and Tarbosaurus: These three tyranosaurs are all currently just their skulls latched onto a Tyrannosaurus postcranium, which is obviously problematic for the first two, although less so for Tarbosaurus (despite the fact that it seems to have brought us shame: [107]). I have semi-complete charts for all of these taxa. Here are the skeletals that I'm thinking of using for reference: [108][109][110][111][112](?)[113]. For these diagrams, should I add fuzz or just keep the tyrannosaurids naked, like I did with Tanycolagreus and Ornitholestes?

I await any feedback you can give! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 16:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 
Deltadromeus
  • Here's the Deltadromeus update. For the silhouette image, I'm thinking of uploading the new silhouette as a different file. Tyrannosaurids will have to wait until some indeterminate time in the future. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see a Deltadromeus without those dragon horns... Looks good, but the hindmost leg looks a but unnatural in pose (the metatarsals would be bent more backwards than here during mid stride). As for fuzz, it is usually kept out of such diagrams, it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be wise to devote time to anything involving Deltadromaeus, we have no idea what it is. If it's a noasaurid, then what is Gualicho, which is similar to Deltadromaeus but entirely unlike noasaurids. This new silhouette is not better or worse than the old one, because we have no guidelines. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the three promised tyrannosaurid diagrams. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is one specimen labelled "Tyrannosaurus bataar" and the next Tarbosaurus bataar? That's not like the efremovi and lancinator designations, that's the exact same species, just subjectively assigned to a different genus. I don't see any reason to use Tyrannosaurus in this case. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems like this one was actually referred to Ta. "eferemovi", so it needs to be updated anyways. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you do want to use Tyrannosaurus here, now that bataar is only used in combination with it, the quotation marks should only be around the generic name, since the species is considered valid, unlike efremovi, lancinator, novojilovi, and huoyanshanensis. Also, when I click to open the image at full size, the ZPAL MgD-107/2 label overlaps with the colour legend for PIN 552-2. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gorgosaurus is nearly ten metres long here but it should be nine. Maybe chunk off about a half metre? Otherwise these three should be fine to push through. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 18:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November Week 4 edit

Kicking off week four with an ankylosaur. I've done so many thyreophorans now they aren't quite as daunting as before (until something goes wrong, that is). The skeletal mounts in the article restore it quite differently, and Paul does too. Why is that? Did Hartman get the shape of the spikes wrong? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 13:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the spikes have been positioned in various ways by different writers and in different mounts. I think I discussed this with MWAK somewhere, perhaps he has something to say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the talk page of Gastonia :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we seem to be in a state of "anything (reasonable) goes?" --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 18:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some constraints. There should be a pelvic shield, large oval plates covering the back, triangular spines at the sides. And those strange osteoderms with elongated keels have to be somewhere.--MWAK (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I think that the diagram currently meets these constraints. Or am I misinterpreting the implications? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a silhouette, it's functional enough. I'm not sure about the BMI of the ape on the left, though ;o).--MWAK (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look good. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Homalocephale article doesn't. I'll see if I can expand it sometime soon. I added the Gastonia, though. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sail feels too tall and strongly curved, I'd go for something more closely matching the Venice mount. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uteodon size comparison for Thanksgiving (Day 22). We can be thankful that modern animals aren't restored like this: [114]. The week'll conclude with some ceratopsians on Friday and Saturday. Comments on this size comparison? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 14:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The front leg seems to be very far forwards? Seems like it could be moved back a bit...FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this enough or should I move it back more? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A little more would probably suffice. When posing limbs obscured by the body, try to imagine/trace how the part out of view would connect with the socket... FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, generally I draw the limbs as separate objects, but this was done by modifying my old Camptosaurus silhouette, which was made before I learned the advantages of this concept (actually by analyzing an image by Steveoc 86!). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the forelimbs feel too thin. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have made them more similar to my Utahceratops size comparison. Any other problems? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 18:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week Five

  • Since I've covered the three main groups of Dinosauria over the past four weeks, I've decided to leave all of week five open to requests. There are six days, and, therefore, six images to make. Any requests on particular taxa that need size comparisons (wouldn't mind doing a stegosaur since I haven't done any yet, especially if anyone can find another skeletal ;))? I can't guarantee that everything will get made. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've yet to do any hadrosaurs for this, and they're my primary interest, so I've got a few suggestions to pick between in that area. Hadrosaurus is obviously an extremely important taxon, though a bit scrappy, and its lacking of a size diagram thus feels like a bit of a hole. It could replace the rather terrible restoration on the page, which I really need to put up for review here. Tsintaosaurus is probably the next important one missing a diagram, and though its article is starved for image space, either the outdated mount or the oudated restoration could be removed for this. Pararhabdodon is one I'm currently working on, and I hope to continue work on it through to FA status, so one for it would be great. Its size was estimated at roughly six metres in this 1999 paper. Beyond these, Telmatosaurus and/or Tethyshadros would both be well served by size comparisons, as dwarfed taxa. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found a Tsintaosaurus skeletal from the Melbourne Museum: [115] How different would the silhouette of Pararhabdodon look? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prettymuch the same as far as we can guess, since it's autapomorphies are all things about the bones you wouldn't see in life. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 13:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tianyuraptor edit

 
Tianyuraptor perching on a branch

Hello. Made a resoration of Tianyuraptor. The current one has wonky legs, a thin tail, and small wings. Any comments? PaleoEquii (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad, but I'm not sure to what extent dromaeosaurids had binocular vision. Also there's an upcoming Tianyuraptor paper presented last month at SVP 2018 with a fair amount of implications for coloration and possible synonymy with Zhenyuanlong. I think that there was supposed to be dark plumage on the neck and possibly elsewhere. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fantastic news! I’ll keep that in mind and update it when the paper comes out. Also, the angle of the eyes is just based on a Velociraptor skull, as well as my own conure. It should be accurate. PaleoEquii (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve updated the painting to reflect the colouration. I’ve also made the painting better in general, adding more environment. Comments? PaleoEquii (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the bright red spots? I don't think they'd be possible with dromaeosaurid feathers. You could change them to blue or purple to act as iridescence though. The rest looks nice though. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anchiornis is supposed to have had a red crest, though? Not a dromaeosaur, but I don't know why they should be different. It's not protofeathers, after all. The eyes look very mammalian (almost anime-like) in this drawing, though, not very bird-like. And I wonder where the tail goes, disappearing into the branch under the snow, or how? FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anchiornis had a rusty crest, red in the same sense as a robin's breast. But iridescence can be red, can't it? Besides, life finds a way, so I wouldn't say that red feathers are not possible. I can say that the current color scheme of the drawing is inaccurate based on the contents of the SVP talk—and the changes to the color scheme didn't help at all—but I'm not sure how much detail I can go into, if I remember correctly the contents of the talk weren't supposed to be shared.Ornithopsis (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract book is online, though, so should be possible to check, if they even go into that much detail there... FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had just been hearing rumors, so I won't labor the point (especially if it's about something I shouldn't know in the first place). And yes, Anchiornis had rusty feathering but the red in the image looked much more vibrant, almost pink. It may just be the hue that is bothering me. Red iridescence can make such colors, but it looks a bit more flat than iridescence would imply. I'm also confused about how the tail just sort of cuts off in the middle of the branch, so the portion which looks to be in front of the branch should be edited out so that it's clear that it lies behind the branch. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the entire animal could benefit from be moved up, the perspective doesn't seem to match between the feet and the branch either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not discussed in the abstract book. Also, many birds which utilize structural coloration do not appear strongly iridescent, such as the blue on some macaws, and I maintain that it is possible that dromaeosaurids could have some kind of bright red pigment. Agreed on the composition being a bit off.Ornithopsis (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated it again. The way the tail was cut off in the middle of the branch was a mistake on my part. Forgot to change that when I added the snow. As for the colours, it would be useful if someone were to link the abstract, or tell me what colours I should be using. I’ll also add that the eyes on the drawing are based on a picture of my own pet bird’s eyes, from the same pose.PaleoEquii (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the grey part the sclera? In that case, the eyes seem too big. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am reasonably sure they are proper size. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information on the colors was presented in the talk but is not included in the abstract, and the presenter asked that the information not be shared. It'll just have to be updated whenever the paper comes out. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can't leave the drawing in limbo forever. I think it's fine as is. Certainly better than the old NT illustration. The feet still look a bit weird though. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos simonattoi by DinoDrawer66 edit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thanos_simonattoi.jpg this is the link to the picture. since i dont know how to add Wikimedia files to Wikipedia.

Obviously you do, you've already put it onto the page three times after being told not to. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DinoDrawer66 Yeah... Im sorry for that but i can only add image files when I am using visual editing and I just got this account and didn't know about this page. 5:55 November 2018

You add files with [[File:Example.png|thumb|right|Caption]] and sign posts with ~~~~. As for the image, the eye is huge, it has an oddly open mouth with no teeth, has unusual horns, and needs some more shading at least. Other errors may be present. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems generally too thin overall, especially at the base of the neck. I also question the use of the image given that, corrected for inaccuracy, we have a near identical image already on the page down to the POV, posture, and colour scheme. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Aucasaurus skelatal by Scott Hartman.

  • The pose of Hartman's skeletal is almost identical to yours, and using GIMP, it seems that you directly traced over his skeletal except for the mandible. I believe this qualifies as copyright violation. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I credited him on my DeviantArt page the original place where I post the artwork. And will change the artwork.

Um Lusotitan, Slate Weasel I am not going to post the art into Wikipedia. So you can delete this when ever you want as I was doing this as a request for mark0731. but I think he understands that I am not going to post it on Wikipedia.

  •  
    by Juan
  •  
    by DinoDrawer66
  • Thanos Overview - Okay, we currently have two restorations of Thanos and seem to be flipping back and forth between both. Can we get a consensus on which image we are using? The first restoration is artistically more competent, though I'm not entirely sold on the colouration even if it is a homage to the comic book character. The second I believe is meant to be deleted from the above comments? Can Creative Commons be revoked like that? I've also noticed a bit of vandalism on the Thanos simonattoi page I've reverted, so keep an eye out for those. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 09:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DinoDrawer66 wrote that: "...you can delete this when ever you want..."

You can does not mean you should. Also, DinoDrawer's restoration has another advatage over Juan's restoration other than the more realistic color, which is that it's based on an Acuasaurus skeletal instead of a Skorpiovenator skeletal, and Acuasaurus is a closer relative of Thanos according to the Thanos paper than Skorpiovenator. Now that he made the eye smaller, changed the horns, and made the neck and the legs thicker so it doesn't have the exact same proportions as Scott Hartman's Acuasaurus skeletal (even though he credited him on his own deviantart page), it's all good.

This is totally false, the paper finds Thanos to be in a polytomy with both Aucasaurus and Skorpiovenator. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 13:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one looks better, and we could just change the colour slightly. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have fixed the colour for the Juan image (leaving it a purple-y grey), and flipped it so we are able to use it cladograms later down the line. Let me know if anything else is needed, thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 04:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the ones which names are closer to Thanos in the phylogeny are more closely related to it. Anyway, that's unrelated, but since you always block me if I edit something no matter what I actually do, would you (please, for the love of God) check these three edits for me to see that they're actually not bad? The first oneis this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pachyrhinosaurus&type=revision&diff=870114039&oldid=868381657 Holtz and Gregory S. Paul are the only ones I could find who estimated the size of Pachyrhinosaurus, and according to what I know about Pachyrhinosaurus from the paleo-community on deviantart (Including Scott Hartman), the estimates of Gregory S. Paul are closer to the truth, and Holtz made many ridicuolus estimates in his Appendix, like 7 meters for Chasmosaurus. The second is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minmi_paravertebra&type=revision&diff=870114924&oldid=867666117 it's actually three meters according to GSP's Field Guide, and the third one is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centrosaurus&type=revision&diff=866211500&oldid=846765545 where I added the weight estimate for C. apertus from GSP's Field Guide. Last question: can I begin editing the english wikipedia with constructive edits like these, and avoid sock puppetry? If not, I'll stick to editing the Hungarian wikipedia, where they let me make constructive edits like these, even though there was a period when I did stupid edits there too.

Not happening. Reported as usual. Goodbye. 2001:569:782B:7A00:EDBC:E6FD:9798:C1DC (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking an IP who haven't done anything until now, I was asking the "big guys" who review stuff.

The upper IP and "Oleg" is the usual Hungarian sockpuppeteer, I have no idea how he keeps coming back. If you want to come back, block evasion will only lengthen your block. Also, if you are allowed back, you should make no undiscussed edits at all. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November Week 5 edit

I'm ending this November with a week for requested size comparisons. Here's a Tsintaosaurus, which was requested by Lusotitan. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some sort of odd notch where the top of the neck meets the head. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was supposed to be where the dorsal skin "ridge" ended. I just removed it since it didn't achieve the desired effect upon taking a second glance. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GAT has a Hadrosaurus skeletal, so I'd check proportions (namely limb length) against that and if they match, go ahead, if not, then do some slight modifications.
This looks good, overall, but the stance looks unbalanced with both its hind legs angled so far back. Maybe try putting the far one forward, about to plant down, or put both more directly under the hip. I'd also move the animal so that either the snout or tail lines up with one of the vertical lines, it's obviously somewhere between three and four metres here but it's hard to pinpoint it more precisely due to the placement.Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Altered it into a jumping position. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 21:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look much different to me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better, Lusotitan? (Hadrosaurus also upsized.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It still feels a bit awkward since both legs are still angled back, but this is definitely a lot better. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the metatarsals erect like in Telmatosaurus, instead of angled ackward. Do these two look okay? Also, do we have a stegosaur expert? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the Hadrosaurus, is it uncrushed enough? For Telmatosaurus, can I just re-use the body of Tetyshadros? Also, I'm probably gonna do Alcovasaurus for taxonomic diversity's sake. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my fault for not doing work on the rather pathetic page of such an important taxon, but the Hadrosaurus should be something like ten metres long, not a paultry seven, per Brownstein's 2018 review of Appalachian dinosaurs. It also mentions twelve metre estimates based on some referred material, but like the humongous Hypsibema claims these are worthy of caution. Whether you want to include those as a secondary silhouette labelled as tentative or just ignore them I'll leave to you. Regarding Telmatosaurus, Tethyshadros has a rather distinct form, but they are pretty close on the tree, so a slightly modified silhouette should be the fine, especially given the lack of useful references. I'll get back to you on whether there any particular things that would need altering. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upsizing done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telmatosaurus for Day 29. I used the skull in the article and "normalized" the axis. I will grow the Hadrosaurus to 10 meters sometime soon. Would a pose like this work better for Tethyshadros? And as for Alcovasaurus, should I base the neck on Miragaia or Headden's Dacentrurus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrapping up November with and Alcovasaurus - generalized Stego-Dacentrurus proportions. Should I shorten the tail by one spike? Any comments on where Alcovasaurus belongs? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four spinosaurids restoration edit

  •  
    Since these animals didn't live in the same time and place, and most of them overlap each other to an extent too high for cropping out, I was thinking the restoration could serve as a nice anachronistic comparison in the family-level article.
  •  
    Standalone version of Suchomimus
  •  
    Standalone version of Baryonyx
  •  
    Standalone version of Irritator
  •  
    Another palaeoecological take on Abelov's Irritator
  •  
    Grayscale Suchomimus by Abelov


Abelov2014 recently published another one of his beautiful paintings, this one featuring four of the best known spinosaurs: Suchomimus, Spinosaurus, Irritator, and Baryonyx. Their proportions and anatomy all look correct and up-to-date to me, except for the Baryonyx. Its torso appears too "sausage-like", with Spinosaurus-like proportions, when it should be more triangular (as per Hartman[116] and Headden[117]). The skull is also too deep and short, when it should have a shallower and less robust look, it also slopes far too early before reaching the tip of the snout. The neural spines could also be a tad higher over the hips. Otherwise, this image looks fine to me. Paleocolour might be interested in blending out the skull openings? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I just linked it at the Irritator peer review. But yeah, as you mention, the fenestrae are very sunken. That Irritator would be pretty gigantic, considering the distance... Another issue with Abelov's image is that they are often green tinted for some reason, which seems to be an artefact og photography, so they could need some auto levelling in Photoshop to look more natural. FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The animal in the foreground is likewise absolutely tiny compared to the rest. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the image of little to no use then? Seems like it'd be very difficult to change their sizes without the background ending up wonky, it'd atleast take some time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't take too long to fix. Hopefully it's acceptable now. Let me know if any other edits are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressive! Certainly looks better to me overall. I guess you used that tool that automatically fills up erased areas? FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I used the Content-Aware Fill tool for this one. Also, regarding the caption on the image to the right, I created a standalone version of Suchomimus we can use as it currently doesn't have a decent life restoration for the paleoecology section. I can do that same for the Baryonyx and Irritator if you think that would be useful. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing! And very quickly done as well. Baryonyx's skull just needs a few more fixes, if you look at this[118] skull reconstruction, you'll see that it was sort of concave on the top, so the head in the restoration should be "dented" in a bit along its upper margin. You also didn't need to straighten out the chin, since the tip of Baryonyx's mandible was indeed upturned like that. With those two minor edits, this image should be ready for article use! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the other cropped images for each species. Unfortunately, Spinosaurus isn't really croppable as it's partially obscured by other things. I'll make those changes soon, to both the 4 spinosaurid image and this new image I have uploaded. Thanks! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks amazing! One thing in the Baryonyx image, a distinguishing feature is the difference between the size and spacing between the upper and lower teeth, as can be seen in this photo[119], though they look rather uniform in the Abelov drawing. I wonder if the front of the snout could be more rounded too, as seen here:[120][121] The upper jaw also looks a bit too long and robust compared to skeletal reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I thought that all of Abelov2014's multi-taxa montages were done for based on their anachronistic fauna, but you proved me wrong Paleocolour, and in spectacular style too. Do you think we could utilize you for the other multi-taxa images Abelov has published previously?Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Paleocolour's already helping out quite a bit, I decided to do my own take on Abelov's Irritator, taking inspiration from Paleocolour's coastline-sprinting Chenanisaurus[122]. It took me some time to learn how to isolate the animal in GIMP but I got it done, the rest was composited in PowerPoint using some restorations, textures, and a Brazilian beach photograph. If you look in the background you'll also notice a Thalassodromeus fending off one Mirischia. I'll deal with the different image licenses soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's looking pretty good, PaleoGeekSquared. I can see the style difference isn't too noticeable. A method that I often use is to blur the background photography so the drawings blend better with their surroundings, and makes it so the change from photorealistic to drawing isn't as jarring. I do think the foot obscured by the bush there is not subtle enough to cover what we don't technically have. Perhaps you could morph the lifted foot into the missing foot and remove the bush altogether? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a bit conspicuous that there is an isolated chunk of grass just where it steps, an alternative solution could be to add a bit more around, so it is less obvious... FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah I wasn't too sure about that part either. Since drawing/shaping the missing foot is beyond my skillset with the software, I went with the simpler option and added more foliage. Does this look better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better. Great job, your skills are improving with each piece. Though, it raises the question of whether this restoration or the isolated original diagram should be used in the article. Both are too similar in terms of the actual restoration to be used in the same article, unfortunately. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went with the coastline one,[123] since it more closely reflects the Romualdo Formation's environment and includes some of its other taxa as well. Two of the other images are also now in their respective articles,[124][125] though Suchomimus will need some expansion before its new restoration can be added, even right now it's looking pretty cluttered. I'm planning on working on that genus once I finish with Siamosaurus, which is next after Irritator. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the shoreline Irritator, perhaps make the horizon a little "softer" (can't think of how else to phrase it)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean? The other elements in the scene also have pretty sharp outlines. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look, it no longer really seems out of place, so I don't think anything is amiss. Nice composition, by the way. Did you use the oil painting filter for this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 01:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I selected and exported the Irritator using GIMP into a png file. Then used powerpoint to composite the scene. The software's "paint brush" filter was used for the background, along with the "cutout" filter for Thalassodromeus, Mirischia, and the grass patches so they would more closely match the style of Abelov's Irritator. Then I used the "film grain" effect for a nice aesthetic touch, as well as to further hide any errors. PowerPoint is a suprisingly useful tool, with it I've put together a lot of my diagrams and restorations, including my previous one [126] for Irritator, which was a pencil drawing placed on an edited photograph. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, Paleocolour, is there any chance you could "de-pronate" the right hand on Abelov's black and white Suchomimus? The image is great otherwise and it would be a shame to lose it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And did you see my comments about the Baryonyx above, Paleocolour? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Abelov2014's Multi-Taxa Montages edit

Hey all. Fanboyphilosopher suggested that I go ahead and split up any anachronistic images of Abelov2014's restorations so they can be used in articles. May I request that any images could be linked to me here in a gallery, very clearly stating which animal should be isolated, and where it is located in the image? I don't have much time to scour through them all to determine which to put time into and doing the research to find which were and weren't in the same location during life. Thanks so much for your help. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once I'm done with my finals (in a few weeks) I'll be able to discuss this more, since several of the images I had in mind had some overall issues that needed to be addressed in depth. The "rauisuchian" image, for example. I'm not as dinosaur-focused as many other people here, so I probably wouldn't be able to contribute much to discussion of his dino-related images anyway. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australovenator and Afrovenator edit

 
 

Hello, I created this restoration of Australovenator. I also made one for Tratayenia, but it’s only a headshot (and I know we don’t have a skull); do you think it would be alright to bring here? Otherwise, any comments on Australovenator? PaleoEquii (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we could accept the Tratayenia head, since no material of it is known (if the head's attached to a full body restoration, then that's a different matter). What's the Australovenator based on? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may have already seen it, but in case you haven't, this may be of use :D https://www.deviantart.com/plastospleen/art/Australovenator-wintonensis-Skeletal-mk-2-771696264 --TKWTH (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had seen it, just hadn't had time to scrutinize it (I added a space in your above comment because your signature was breaking the link). The torso could probably be deeper and the arms could probably be narrower, but that's all I can see as potentially being wrong. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Australovenator itself, The third finger can probably be a bit smaller and the right foot looks weird, shouldn't the middle toe be quite a bit longer than the other two? The jaw is also a bit thinner than photos of the fossil would imply. I would recommend checking out Matt White's analyses of Australovenator limbs to refine the proportions. All of his papers are freely available on PLOS and Peerj. I'd also recommend that you clean up the outline a bit, it looks a bit sketchy. Megaraptoran classification is quite controversial, so it may be a bit more accurate with filaments, but I'm not sure. Maybe add some fuzz just to be safe. I don't recommend bringing a head-only picture of Tratayenia whatsoever, for the same reasons given above. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue with a sketchy outline, the one thing about that seems off is the part of the back where the black outline stops and the edge gets a bit splotchy. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Australovenator with the edits outlined above. I made it so the head and eye more accurately reflected the skeletal diagram linked above, and cleaned the outline. However, I have not added any filaments as that would take considerably more time and it's somewhat speculative either way from my understanding. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 15:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and fantastic job may I add. The filament thing, it would depend on where Megaraptora fit in. If they’re Tyrannosauroids, I’d give them feathers, but if not, yeah. If something comes out, I can always redo them. It doesn’t take long. Speaking of which, are there any dinosaurs in particular need of a new reconstruction? PaleoEquii (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added another reconstruction of Afrovenator. Is this one alright? PaleoEquii (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the far hand is on backwards. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are some absolutely humongous hands. I know they had big claws, but this seems a bit too much. Probably looks off because the lower arms are as fat as the wrists. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The arms overall feel disproportionately bulky big and bulky. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the orientation of the hand, but I don’t feel that the arms are too big. They’re a bit meaty, but Afrovenator had very large arms. PaleoEquii (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can't hold this against this in terms of use on the page as it's not any sort of inaccuracy, I will note the way the closer arm is visually overlapping with one of the feet makes for a very difficult to read silhouette. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No animals have "meaty" wrists (it is all tendons and skin, like ankles for that matter), the arms should definitely thin inwards right before the hands, not just continue as straight lines. And comparing with skeletal diagrams and photos of mounts, the hands look too big as well. It is as if they are even larger than the feet here. And there is a perspective issue too, the hind hand on the Afrovenator looks larger than the one at the front. Yes, the hands were large, but the bones were slender, not robust. FunkMonk (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the Afrovenator restoration. Let me know if further edits are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 12:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antetonitrus silhouette & size edit

 
Antetonitrus silhouette
 
Size of Antetonitrus compared to human

Hi, I've made an Antetonitrus silhouette that hopefully is suitable for use on Wikipedia. I was intending to have it as a size reference since there is none on the page so far, but alas I have no experience in making grid charts (I can try to learn it, but school's quite pestering), so I was wondering if someone else could try using the silhouette to make it instead. I am unsure of whether the figures of the osteology are licensed or not (journal is Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society), so I chose to hide them for now; if you are interested in seeing how complete the genus is, as well as a scale chart for known individuals, it is up on my dA (same username). Scale bar is 1 metre, specimen is scaled to the holotype BP/1/4952, the largest known individual. Megalotitan (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it could have a human for scale? FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a size diagram for this one. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 17:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, remember to credit the original artist and image, though! FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Fixed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 18:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a little smaller than what the original scale bar would suggest? Thank you in any case, looks very nice. Megalotitan (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I scaled it exactly as your scale bar described. I think there might be an optical illusion that makes it seem as though your scale bar is flush with the tip of the snout when it actually isn't. You can see from the 1m squares on the size chart that it indeed reaches 8 meters in length. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 01:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see it now. Thank you once again. Sorry to leave you hanging on the Ingentia edit by the way, I'm prioritizing other things I'd like to get out of the way first. I'll try to get to it as soon as possible. Megalotitan (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PaleoEquii, if you're looking for a dinosaur to restore, what about this one? The silhouette here should be enough to give you a basis to work with, if you're interested. With a nice restoration, this article would be pretty complete. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 

Do you think anything should change with this?

The claws definitely don't look very sauropod (or "prosauropod") like, they should be be longer on both the hands and feet, like indicated in the skeletal silhouette.[127] On the other hand, it should not have external claws on the fourth and fifth fingers, since no archosaurs are known to have had this. Not sure what the beak is based on either, it has only been proposed for some derived sauropods, so doesn't seem parsimonious here for such a basal member. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I’ve updated it according to your comments. Anything wrong with it? PaleoEquii (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rear toes look ... wrong. The second toe should be the longest, they all should be subequal in width, and there shouldn't be a claw extending backwards (see left foot rear). The neck also looks too bulky I thought it was a monitor lizard at first. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bulky neck appears to be a dewlap, since you can see a shaded "indentation" where the dewlap starts and the underside of the neck ends. The neck itself is actually the correct thickness, though I'd recommend making it a least a little more obvious where the dewlap begins, probably with some additional shading. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fatty dewlap neck was intentional. I also tried again to fix the foot anatomy, and added a background. PaleoEquii (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The right foot is almost done, the middle toe just needs a touch more length, so the difference is noticable. The left foot still looks like it has a reversed hallux, and only two toes are visible where at the angle there would be all three. Also, the background is not usable because it doesn't have a compatible license. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Fixed. At this point, I’d think any problem in the foot anatomy would be minor enough to let slip. Hopefully there aren’t any. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The feet still look really wonky, just in a different way. Look at how completely different the claw lengths are on the right foot compared to the left. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and added a small amount of background. Added to article. Thanks! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 18:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weewarrasaurus and Poekilopleuron edit

For the new Weewarrasaurus page, I made a quick headshot. I went the safe route and gave it just scales. I’ll probably wait until the page is larger. Critique?

At this point, I'd say the safest bet for small ornithischians is to give them quills; we have no evidence for anything else, except for in Scutellosaurus. Anyhow, considering this animal is only known from partial dentaries and teeth, I'd expect an open mouth to show the shape of the teeth, as now it doesn't show any particular features of the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I’ve opened the mouth a bit. Let me know if I need to add more musculature or change the teeth. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that makes it much more useful in the article. As for scale and proportions, I'll leave that for other reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would agree with FunkMonk that fuzz is more likely than scales, the description paper of Diluvicursor, which shared prominent author Matthew Herne, featured a scaly reconstruction of that animal (also considered a basal ornithopod, though I find the argument it being one very weak myself), which you could argue sets a precedent. Anyways, the integument isn't a dealbreaker either way. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added some dino-fuzz to the Weewarrasaurus. Is this better? PaleoEquii (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, but where's the nostril? Seems it was painted over with scale texture. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing you caught that. Fixed. PaleoEquii (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I'll add it to the page once there's room. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also now added a reconstruction of Poekilopleuron bucklandii.PaleoEquii (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing edits to this when I have free time. I've done some research into this dinosaur and I can see the proportions are slightly off regarding the arms. I'm also going to drop a background into the scene, probably. Great restoration! You're really on a roll. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated. If you’d like, I could try to add the background. As far as I know, it lived in and near mangrove swamps. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to try if you're interested, but I was going to use a real photo, similar to how I've done my Chenanisaurus restoration. It's a lot easier than drawing it from scratch. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished the fixes, made a separate background version, and also created a size diagram for Poekilopleuron. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 14:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. It makes it look like the green and brown are camouflage for the forests, which is good. And showing social behaviour is always nice. PaleoEquii (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the trees could use a bit of an outline too? Right now the style of the dinosaurs doesn't really match up with the background (which is quite blurred). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find the dinosaurs rather hard to make out to make out at thumbnail size given their similar coloration to the trees, which is un-ideal for the only restoration on the page. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I highlighted the Poekilopleuron pair to make it easier to see. Hope this helps. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request: A new restoration and size chart for Huaxiagnathus edit

  •  
  •  
    Old size chart
  •  
    New size chart, these guys sure were large for compsognathids

I politely ask if any one is willing to create a replace these two Huaxiagnathus related images, there isn't any decent reconstructions of Huaxiagnathus to be found on wikicommons. Also, the size chart for animal is based on the outdated restoration, so that also need replacing. Monsieur X (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have time to make a restoration but I'd be up for creating the new size chart. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could modify the old restoration. Anything that should be changed apart from that listed in the inaccurate template? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great! This'll be a collaboration then. As was pointed out before, it should probably have about as much feathering as Sinosauropteryx, given that it was a compsognathid. I'd also make the feathers a bit more matted, and reduce the "mohawk" on its head. Although it's not necessarily inaccurate, it just seems like a tired-out trope nowadays. Especially when it is made to look more like goofy porcupine quills than actual feathers. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the new diagram, while I was at it I decided to include both the holotype and the largest specimen found. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the size chart. Now about that older restoration, I suggest keeping the colouration and patterns, with the exception of the grey on the back and the weird purple-ish(?) feathers. In my opinion, it looks similar to what we know about Sinosauropteryx, while being different enough to be its own thing. Monsieur X (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eeeh, to be honest I think that old recon could be replaced altogether; the raised foot looks kinda wonky, and I feel it's got a bit too little meat on it. It has visible fenestrae, too, which doesn't help...and where exactly is it's ear? Overall, I think it could probably be better to just have an entirely new image on the article, rather then trying to salvage this one. Keep the basic colors, as Monsieur X said, but I think that image could easily be replaced by a newer one that fixes all the issues. That's just my opinion, though. Raptormimus456 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, problem is just that someone has to make the new one, which will probably take some time. Other problem is, if we make a new one, this old one will still be floating around the Internet spreading "false" information. And the anatomical issues you mentioned are of course just part of what needs to be changed, I think it is easier and less time consuming than making a new image. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I quickly made this reconstruction of Huaxiagnathus. If there’s anything needing changes, I can do so.PaleoEquii 11:28, 10 November 2018 (EST)
 
  • I wonder if Paleocolour would be able to fix this one? Can't say I'm convinced by the replacement image that was made... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 07:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a whole different image! Looks better, but I'm pretty sure compsognathids are not thought to have had vaned feathers? FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is some controversy about that, but it seems like individual filaments, sometimes bundled together at the base, were most common in Sinosauropteryx. So I'd recommend getting rid of the big, pennaceous wing feathers. Also I can't help but feel bad for The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths, whose Huaxiagnathus image has been languishing in limbo for a month while this new contestant pops up. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered further in the other Huaxiagnathus section, but it seems way too much prodding has to be done before the desired changes are made for it to be worthwhile. Any chance of removing the wings here, Paleocolour? And are you still on fixing that Baryonyx so the nostril and ear become clearer? It will soon be cast in pdf at the WikiJournal... FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just uploaded the fixed version of the Baryonyx, let me know if that's alright. I also finished removing the toe on Shunosaurus. I could try and remove the wings on this restoration, however it would require more time than I'd like to put into it, as I'd need to redraw a large portion of the image. I'm currently putting my time into a Rahiolisaurus restoration (non-ortho view!). I always have to weigh my time between working on a fix for an existing image or creating my own original images, and I usually hope to put my time into high-quality image fixes first and foremost. That being said, I'll keep this one on the backburner should I ever feel inspired. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 01:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Huxiagnathus article currently lacks room for another image either way. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Baryonyx looks good! And as for the Huaxiagnathus, yeah, no rush, but of course good to get it fixed down the line, so it isn't mistakenly used on other Wikipedias without our knowledge. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletals by Maurissauro edit

The Commons user Maurissauro has upoaded a bunch of skeletal diagrams, which should probably be checked (this page is growing fast):

The first one looks very close to the skull in the newest Buriolestes paper... FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least with the skulls it seems like they don't account for crushing at all. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is mostly based on the referred specimen, but with some details based on the holotype as well. These skeletals are to be published in an upcoming paper, however I uploaded here first to improve the Brazilian pages regarding these taxa. They all were based on already published specimens (first-hand observations) and, in general, are scientifically correct. Although I did not care much about the fine details, once they were not planned to be used alone.. Maurissauro
The lagerpetid should have at least some visible teeth. The Pampadromaeus skull seems like it's also crushed, going by Paul (2016). You've also given it, Buriolestes, and Saturnalia pronated hand(s). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 11:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Saturnalia shows more material than is known. The upper skull is unknown, and the rear dorsal ribs are as well. The foot also looks to have extremely thin bones. The skull of the Bagualosaurus is too small, and the Pampadromeus doesn't display the known material of the far leg. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maurissauro, can you give some examples of scientific articles which your work has been published in? Your style looks eerily similar to that I've seen in several publications, but I don't want to call plagiarism if it's your work in the first place. That being said, your lagerpetid illustration is frighteningly close to this[128] piece by Gabriel Ugueto, so I am suspicious. Most of what needs to be said about accuracy has already been said, but I also find it weird how proportionally different Buriolestes, Saturnalia, and Pampadromaeus. They're all basal sauropodomorphs known from incomplete skeletons, surely they wouldn't have such different silhouettes and proportions. The Pampadromaeus in particular caught my eye with how long-legged, big-headed, and short-tailed it was reconstructed compared to the other two. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volgatitan Skeletal edit

 
Skeletal reconstruction of Volgatitan, known material in white

  Done

After having a serious failure with Erketu, I discovered this new sauropod, and quickly whipped up a skeletal for it: [129] Comments so far? Are these the approximately correct locations for the verts? If so, Austroposeidon/Randomdinos' Mendozasaurus can be used to scale it correctly: [130] (as opposed to my very bad current version :P ). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the placements are fine, and the skeletal to base it on is a good choice. No objections. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went to do the Mendozasaurus-ization, and after saying "that can't be right," I produced a 1m scale bar. It turns out that my skeletal put Volgatitan at ~25 meters, Dreadnoughtus-class stuff (which is rubbish since there's a 10 cm difference in centrum length!), so D O W N S I Z E D ! Also, I should have read the paper more clearly! It says that the first caudal actually is Ca1, so downsized AGAIN! Still, it's pretty big (big Mendozasaurus-class) compared to Mendozasaurus. I'll upload it soon, and make some changes to my Argentinosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vertebrae are backwards. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah great... I made the vertebrae for a right view but this is a left view... anyways, it's fixed now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last couple vertebrae are still backwards. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully actually correct now... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other problems with it. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been added to the article. I'll archive this section soon unless someone else beats me to it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lognkosaur Skeletals edit

 
Argentinosaurus
 
Puertasaurus

Here's my old Argentinosaurus skeletal, which is quite outdated and poorly executed. I have decided to improve it. My progress so far is here: [131]. As you can see, I heavily relied on the paper's reconstructions, which probably could be better considering the location of the vertebrae. I will update it to more accurate soon. I have yet to finish the fibula, and have no clue how to deal with the sacrum. As for the illium, pubis, and femur (not to mention a rumored seventh dorsal, plus six more ones of dubious existence), I'm not sure how to even start them. Also, here's my Puertasaurus: [132]. Any input on how to do the caudals? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it turns out that I can't count. Here's the new dorsal series with the correct number of vertebrae: [133]. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my current progress: [134] White represents known elements, yellow represents known but inadequately figured elements, blue represents known but undescribed elements, gray represents unknown elements. Sacrum and appendicular elements still need to be fully restored. They are based on Carpenter's fascinating reconstruction for lack of a better thing (fascinating because it shows 10 known vertebrae instead of six...). Comments on this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 14:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The final version is here! [135] Any comments before I upload this over my old skeletal? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the different colours distinguishing figured/unfigured/referred material come across as more confusing than helpful. Distinguishing holotype and referred is nice but while intended well the distinction between figured and unfigured shouldn't be as great, and if shown at all it should essentially be a different shade of the same colour as figured and nothing more drastic. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, in addition to some fine anatomical details. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dicraeosauridae Size Comparison edit

 
AT LAST!!!

Remember how long, long ago I said that I would make a dicraeosaurid size comparison? Well, since no one else has made it for me, I decided to upload it for the winter holidays. (Oh yeah - "Santaposeidon" came to town.) Anyways, the image description's quite long, due to the number of taxa included. Hopefully I didn't make any major mistakes. I used this image as a test for translucent silhouettes, but I'm not sure that I like the effect too much. Also, expect more Brachiosaurus stuff and family-grade sauropod size comparisons! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the accuracy of the sizes, but I think the transparency has cluttered the image too much in that I find it difficult to read the silhouettes- most notably on all the overlapping legs. My suggestion would be to increase the opacity of the transparency and move the dinosaurs apart enough so you can see the majority of the volume of each. Maybe look to my diagram here for inspiration. Great work so far, though! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look better? I split them with the more basal ones on the left and the more derived ones on the right, following the Lingwulong phylogeny. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks much better. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, it's easier to see the size of each animal now. This might just be my browser reading the .svg, but the text for Amargasaurus cazaui overlaps onto the red square of Dicraeosaurus sattleri. Would it be possible to move those apart slightly? I'm using Google Chrome, a pretty common internet browser, so this will probably happen to a lot of people. Thanks! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the problem with SVG text, you never quite know how it's going to render as a thumbnail. Anyways, it should be working now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's working for me too. Great work. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/Archive_September_2018_-_December_2018&oldid=1154133047"