Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 11

message: I have an issue with the hypodigm of Avisaurus spp.; can't seem to find a ref. See here. Dysmorodrepanis 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Avisaurus]]

message: Can someone confirm what dinosaurs were in Night at the Museum?  Someone is adding the sentence "The movie features Two [dinosaur genus X] skeleton in Night at the Museum." to many entries. J. Spencer 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only dinosaur I remember seeing was T. rex. I don't recall any others. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could they have been in the background? Triceratops in popular culture, Stegosaurus in popular culture, Dimetrodon, Parasaurolophus, Corythosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Anatotitan, Edmontosaurus, Styracosaurus, Ankylosaurus, and Apatosaurus in Extinct animals in popular culture are the animals this user, 71.130.214.249, has added this or a variant to, which are currently still present (I see you took out Apatosaurus and Deinosuchus once before). These have got to be from something else; AMNH doesn't even have skeletons of some of these animals. J. Spencer 04:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I would have remembered all those. I just saw this movie two weeks ago. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can see around 20 screenshots on the Internet Movie Database. Even in the party scenes, with all the animals, there is exactly one dinosaur: T. rex. I'm reverting these edits. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Night at the Museum'' 

message: Someone has recently created this article. What it comes down to is a brief (under 5 minutes) scene in a notable movie. This could be covered better, in my opinion, in the JP3 article. Other voices before I send this to WP:AFD? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be pretty much OR. If there's anything useful, put it in JP3. J. Spencer 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Spinosaurus vs. Tyrannosaurus]]

message: Alright folks - voting is tied at 4 apiece between Ankylosaurus and Compsognathus. I have extended voting by 7 days (well, people have only just started attacking the Iguanodon article anyways...). If it is still tied then I'll toss a coin and vote myself (I thought I'd give people a last chance to vote and I honestly couldn't decide myself) :) cheers Cas Liber 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voted! Thanks for keeping us on track with these collaboration things, Cas! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GOAL! - as we move into extra time here at dino-wembley, our armoured chum makes an early lead.....(nailbiting isn't it?) cheers Cas Liber 07:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bwahah! You'd think a quick-moving theropod would be able to out-race a lumbering, plodding thyreophoran, though... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next collaboration tied - voting extended by 7 days. Need tie-breaker 

message: We've just gotten Amphicoelias and Thescelosaurus to Good Article status, and it was a pretty simple procedure, so I was wondering if we could put together a short list of other articles that could probably make GA with minor modifications.  I'm not talking the heavy effort that goes into an FA, just copy edits, maybe some refs, some section expansion where needed, etc. This could also be a good outlet for anyone's "pet" dinosaurs that don't really have enough published on them to build a full FA.
My thoughts, arranged roughly from least work needed to most:
*Microraptor
*Species of Psittacosaurus (only issue is P. sibiricus was recently described in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, so that would need to be added.  I don't have that one currently)
*Coelophysis
*Struthiomimus
*Othnielosaurus (with some pictures)
*Spinosaurus (more refs, in-line)
*Troodon (ditto)
J. Spencer 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inspired by your work on Thescelosaurus, and Dinoguy's on Amphicoelias, I've decided to give Scelidosaurus a whirl. I recently expanded it quite a bit, so the main thing I'll need to add is refs. I agree some of those others could easily become Good Articles, with only a little effort. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind putting some work into Microraptor--I believe I've got all the papers on it, so I'll do a run-through one of these days and see if anything important is left out. Dinoguy2 14:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This list may help us determine the articles most ready for a collaborative FAC effort. It lists Wikipedia's dinosaur articles in order of size, and while some of the information is out of date, I hope it will be useful. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea that Heterodontosauridae was that big.  A little expansion on the last section, and that one's a GA, I think. Thanks for the work, Firs! J. Spencer 15:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Well, actually, I ran into many problems, but it's done now. :) This list, of course, says nothing about the overall quality of an article, but it's a place to get started. The largest articles probably don't need too much further expansion. Like you, I was surprised about several articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA candidates 

message: Just a head's up: Wikipedia's Thagomizer article may be deleted, as it was recently prodded (proposed for deletion) by user:SMcCandlish, with the following reason: Silliness. Any actual material in here that is not in the proper article on dinosaurs should be moved there. Apparently, the user has not seen the length of the Dinosaur article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with its deletion, but maybe a comprimise would be to merge it into Stegosauria? Dinoguy2 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind a compromise like that, either. He states on his talk page he wants it moved to the correct anatomical name. I don't think there is one. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From all I've read outside of wikipedia, the term is used in the academic literature. Can you all confirm that? If so, it seems unamibguous that it should be kept. Also, can you link the AfD? Thanks. Debivort 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no AFD yet; the above user has indicated on his talk page that the article needs moved to the correct name and needs to be rewritten. However, even Palaeos.com uses the term in their glossary. A brief look at the other terms used on that page ("Taenia clino-orbitalis", "Tarsometatarsus", "Telychian", "Temporomandibular joint") indicates they use all the correct paleontological terms, yet still include "Thagomizer". Firsfron of Ronchester 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Thagomizer]] may be deleted

message: Due to some sort of Wiki-glitch, I was stuck with some articles stuck on my watchlist with no way to remove them. My watchlist recently had over 10,000 pages with no way to remove many of them. They've all now been removed, unfortunately including the dinosaur pages. It may take me a while to add them all back; meanwhile, I apologize but I won't be reverting much vandalism until I can manage to add the dinosaur articles back to my watchlist. Just thought I'd alert everyone. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, I have a special page I used to track changes before I got all the dinosaur articles added.  You don't get the talk pages, but you get all the genera and all of the higher-level groups, and various other topics. It's I take this too seriously. J. Spencer 15:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, J. That will save me some sorting time. When you add an article to your watchlist, the talk page is added automatically (and vice versa). I really didn't want to have to manually add every page back to my watchlist, but I may have to. Before I do that, I'm going to attempt to add null edits using AWB (hopefully these won't show up on anyone's watchlist). Thanks again. Right now, I have seven pages on my watchlist, and it's just weird. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism watchlist

message: I was just looking over the number of Featured Dinosaur articles & would like to say well done to all those who took part in the achievement of no less that 8 featured dinosaur articles & a few GAs too. This is a great feat & you should all be proud of your work... Keep it up... Spawn Man 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work: 

message: Hi, everyone.  We've put in a lot of work on Iguanodon, had a third party go over it (Circeus, from the Triceratops FAC), and now I think it's getting near the point we can send it out for its own spin on FAC.  Would anyone like to take out the dinosaur wax and help make sure it's buffed to perfection? J. Spencer 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't see too much wrong with the article at the moment. The best thing to do (especially if it's only as you say copy-editng stuff) would be to list Iguanodon as an FAC & then see what, if any, opposes there are to fix. That way, we won't just waste time doing copyediting which mightn't be needed in the first place. And besides, whatever copyediting is done prior to a FAC, there will always be a multitude of other problems found no matter how well your copyediting was. Also, who will be nominating the article, as I feel it's ready now. Someone other than myself or Cas Liber, as we've had our fair share of dino-featuring & I'd like to see another editor get the chance at being able to experience a dino FAC. That way we'll always have a good supply of credible & experienced editors on our team. Of course I, & probably others, would help out with any problems that occur at FAC. Just my 2 cents. Thoughts everyone? Spawn Man 06:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto - Go for it dude - with >3 of us backing up to deal with objecting issues it should pass easiliy. I reckon it is a killer and comes over better than the last 3 I put up. Great job. Cas Liber 06:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus I don't want Cas to over take me in number of Dino FA's. ;) Well you've got our approval (not that you needed it), so I say you should go & get a FA under your belt... Spawn Man 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, gang, I've nominated it (hope no one minds). The nom can be found here. You know, I never know for sure what the FAC reviewers will want; each FAC has been different. All I know is that several folks here (no need to name names, I assume) put in a heck of a lot of work on this article, and I hope it will pay off. Everyone cross your fingers! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, I thought J. Spencer was nom-ing? Never mind though, good rationale on the FAC Firs. Spawn Man 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, no biggie, I wasn't here; I'm just glad to see it going forward.  By the way, there's a fantastic specimen timeline-in-progress posted on the Archaeopteryx talk page. J. Spencer 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That Archie timeline diagram will be great, if the final, questionable dates can be cleared up. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let Y tambe know, then, 'cause that's who made it :) . J. Spencer 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iguanodon 

message: Turiasaurus: "Phylogenetic analysis shows that Turiasaurus lies outside of the Neosauropoda division and belongs to a new clade, Turiasauria..." -- Can anybody give us a definition/article for "Neosauropoda"? Thanks. -- 201.50.251.197 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote a brief stub. Will expand later. Thanks for your comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your hard work! :-) -- 201.50.251.197 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Neosauropoda]]" is redlink 

message: Today an editor was asking about an article on "Sue" the T. rex.  There are three articles on specific specimens that I know of: Jane (dinosaur), Big Al (fossil), and the recently-created Trachodon mummy (which I think could become a useful article on dinosaur "mummies" in general, as that is an interesting topic, but I don't think one specimen should be singled out).  I agree that it's a bad precedent to create new articles on specimens, and as far as I can tell, the first two have their own (not particularly large) articles because of media coverage.  Honestly, "Sue" is more deserving in my mind of an article than the other two theropods, which could be subsections on the pages of their genera. J. Spencer 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Please no more articles on individual specimens of dinosaurs. Our guidelines state "Articles should not get any more specific than genus level. Individual species should be discussed in the article about the appropriate genus." An article on an individual specimen goes even further. I don't think seperate articles for specimens -- even famous ones-- are really needed. Especially when many of our genus articles are so short. Thescelosaurus is a great example where there is a section for "Willo". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And one more: Homer (dinosaur). IMHO all of these (if thought necessary at all) should be incorporated as sections in the articles on their respective genera. -- 201.51.231.176 12:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the (short) Homer info to the Burpee Museum of Natural History page, as it made the most sense there. J. Spencer 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took care of Big Al, too.  Jane I'm not sure about, because I'd guess half of the information is more pertinent to the museum article, and half to Tyrannosaurus. J. Spencer 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on famous specimens