Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 4

message: Folks - Please sign your messages with ~~~~. Please also try to add appropriate section headings if you are beginning a new topic of discussion. Please add new discussion to the bottom of the page. - UtherSRG 12:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The old talk page was getting a bit long so I have archived it. See above for anything you want to review. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clean slate 

message: Per the Wiki guide to layout, the part of the article before the first section heading should be introductory. It seems to me that in this article the 1st paragraph is a good introduction, but the long 2nd and 3rd paragraphs get into non-introductory material. The length of these paragraphs also has the effect of pushing the TOC pretty far down on the page. I thought that adding a section heading "The dinosaur record" after the 1st paragraph would be a good solution. This heading title pretty much fits the content of paragraphs 2 & 3, though perhaps not perfectly. Comments? KarlBunker 13:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is too long, and contains non-introductory material, but the heading "Dinosaur record"  wasn't appropriate to the content of the section. The introduction needs to be re-written, with some parts move to other sections. John.Conway 15:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and that's what I've done. Moved parts of the old lead section into other sections, and made the new lead section into 3 short paragraphs. KarlBunker 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good job. 24.63.83.203 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's much better. - John.Conway 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the lead section

message: The fossil range in the box is useful to the reader when it reads "Triassic - Cretaceous". If it is amended to read "Carnian - Maastrichtian", it serves to trumpet how very knowledgable we all are, but it's no longer very useful to the reader. Let's keep an eye out for pretentious showing-off and try to keep it to a minimum. --Wetman 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The taxoboxes shouldn't be overloaded with detail.  In the text the more precise range can be given but I think it best to give it in million years ago with "Carnian to Maastrichtian" in brackets if at all. Jimp 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil range

message: Reading through the first part of the article, it occurs to me that we don't directly address what dinosaurs LOOKED like. The question is addressed tangentially in pictures and via the various discussions of size, feathers and so forth.
The article used to say that dinosaurs had physical characteristics ranging from those of reptiles to those of birds. While certainly an oversimplification, I thought that this was a useful way to "bound" the visible appearance problem. Perhaps that statement could be the jumping-off point for a short paragraph early in the article? - Killdevil 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did dinosaurs look like? 

message: Ok, no offense, but what does this even mean? Which reptile do they looks like? Snakes, turtles, aligators, tuatara, or what? Which dinosaurs are bird-like and which are reptile-like? Which do hadrosaurs look like? Amkylosaurs? This phrase is very subjective, depends on an inidividuals mental concepts of "bird" and "reptile", and I'm not sure it's useful, when dinosaurs cover such a vast array of appearances.Dinoguy2 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Not only is "Reptile to avian-like in appearance' not very meaningful, it's unnecessary. Pretty much everyone has a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like, so there's no need to try to put it into words. I've removed that phrase. KarlBunker 14:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original phrase was "crocadile-like to bird-like" encompassed the nearest living nondinosaur relatives and the  actual living dinosaurs we also call birds. Dinosaurs are like every type of bird because every type of bird is a dinosaur. The dinos-crocs split in the ancient past is a matter of definition, so ancient dinos and ancient crocs were indistinguishable at the moment definition seperates the two lines. (there wasn't a defined intermediary group was there?) WAS 4.250 22:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reptile to avian-like in appearance 

message: How did the featured article star get put up next to the article's title in the upper right-hand corner of the page? A developer?  ⇒  JarlaxleArtemis 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding the "" tag to the text appears to do that. KarlBunker 17:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article star 

message: This article says in the "Cenozoic Dinosaurs" section that a fossil found in El Ojo, South America, is possibly from the Cenezoic. However, the endnote states:
::^ Fassett, J, R.A. Zielinski, & J.R. Budahn. (2002). Dinosaurs that did not die; evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. 
Is it New Mexico or South America? Probably isn't both.--Firsfron 06:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it's just two places (both with fossils) with the same name. "El Ojo" means "cottonwood tree" in Spanish. KarlBunker 12:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cenozoic Dinosaur contradiction in endnote

message: A gallery section has been added. I put in a few images I found in a quick search of Commons. Please feel free to add/remove/rearrange. I know there must be lots of great images out there that we can legally use. KarlBunker 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldnt it be better to concentrate more on the drawings than on the skeletons? --Dudo2 18:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why. I think there's a lot of value and beauty to all the types of images: drawings/paintings, models, skeletons (love that Triceratops!), and imprint-fossils like the Microraptor. KarlBunker 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should showcase all types of images. However, I think they should be arranged by type. Those drawings are awesome, by the way. Another note: I'm going to move some of the images that were added last week from the article into the gallery. Killdevil 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery section 

message: Hello,
I am a student at the University of Chicago who has a passion for dinosauria among many other things. I volunteered for Paul Sereno in the cleaning and preparation of Jobaria and also witnessed the preparation of Rugops + Rajasaurus as well. Right now, there are some more surprises in store...
I'd like to point out a couple things though to improve the Dinosaur entry:
Also among the earliest dinosaurs was the primitive Lagosuchus; Saltopus, which was barely larger than a human hand, appeared slightly later.
Lagosuchus and Saltopus are poor examples to use in a dinosaur entry. They are both nomina dubium of very fragmentary remains which might not even be dinosaurian, although they definitely seem to be archosaurs. Instead, since Eoraptor is already mentioned, Herrarasaurus, Coelophysis, or even the primitive sauropod Saturnalia.
Instead of Saltopus being placed as an example of a very small dinosaur, how about using the more well known and feathered (and cool) Epidendrosaurus?
Finally, Seismosaurus is the current record holder for the longest dinosaur. Not Supersaurus, which lost that record when Seismosaurus was released to science. Supersaurus isn't even longer than Argentinosaurus.
Carlos
:Good suggestions, except the last--a new study coming out on Supersaurus shows that Seismosaurus is first of all the same thing as Diplodocus, and secondly not nearly as long as first estimated, being about 105ft long. Except for Amphicoelias, Supersaurus is indeed the longest dinosaur at 116 ft (Argentinosaurus was at most 114ft), though Argenitnosaurus and other were much more massive. Dinoguy2 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes