Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 10

message: I was working on some ornithischian pages and noticed a potential problem with the Linnaean classification being used across the project. We're ostensibly using Benton (2004) for ranks, but the current system does not reflect this closely. For example, he places Ceratopsia, Pachycephalosauria, and Ornithopoda as Infraorders in suborder Cerapoda--we're using Suborder Marginocephalia for the first two, and have Ornithopoda bumped up to Suborder with an Infraorder Iguanodontia. Now, since my push to adopt Benton, a very good resource has come online-- the Paleobiology Database . Not only does this list authority information for most taxa I tried searching for, it also lists rank, which in most cases reflects the original published rank for that taxon. This site has the more 'traditional' ornithischian setup, with Ceratopsia, Stegosauria, Ornithopoda, etc. etc. as Suborders. While this site does include some contradictions as contradicting rankings have been published (for example, in the 70s and later the various major coelurosaurian clades began to be hived off as infraorders, while coelurosauria itself was originally an infraorder). I see two possibilities for revision--continue using Benton and revise the dinosaur entries to better adhere to it, or use the ranks as originally published for individual taxa, and revise accordingly. Either way, the ornithischian classification right now appears to be original research or uncited. Dinoguy2 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan of ranks above family, but when I'm here, I'll go with whatever is chosen.  Offhand, I'd say go with Benton because it's more modern than most (except for things like Turiasauria, which have to be dealt with as they appear), but I wouldn't get too fond of any particular ornithischian classification at this time.  It's nice to have just one source, but we do have to compensate at times.  What happens if Iguanodontia and Marginocephalia turn out to be sister groups, for example? J. Spencer 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ornithischians and Classification in General 

message: You can comment here. There seems to be a disconnect here, between an article that is nonsense, and a subject that is pseudoscience. People just aren't getting it. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems with nomina nuda (and the lack of sources for same on DinoGeorge's list): exhibit A ;) . Dinoguy2 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and you have every right to say "I told you so". At the same time, I only wanted Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs to be as comprehensive as any other source. This is a bit depressing, as we were also forced to keep that stupid "Antarticopelta" redirect. Trust Wiki to require us to keep a mispelled article, but delete a correctly-spelled one. Ugh. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where being comprehensive is a good thing, though, and being able to expalin why a genus name is dubious, or improperly described, or whatever in individual articles is actually a big advantage over pure lists of names. It's just that actually citing these things is gonna be tough, especially since nomina nuda tend to be found in really obscure places and sources. Dinoguy2 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're absolutely right, Dinoguy. I've added citations where they have been requested; hopefully this will be enough to mollify people on the AFD. But I doubt it. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misspellings are for people who can't spell correctly--one of the most frustrating things about Wikipedia is the poor number of incorrect spelling redirects.  This is substandard for the web. Nomina nuda by their nature tend not to have sufficient resources to merit an entire article.  Can't this just be included in Baugh's article?  Does it really merit its own article? I don't know of any botanical nomina nuda that get their own articles.  KP Botany 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had misspelling redirects for every dinosaur, we'd have literally thousands and thousands of redirects to watch. Nepenthes x truncalata is one example of a nomen nudum plant; there are several others. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So instead there are none?  There should be redirects for common mispellings, it adds to the utility of Wikipedia.  The Nepenthes x truncalata article doesn't say it is a nomen nudum except in the categories section--bad.  KP Botany 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree common mispellings should be redirects. The problem was that the redirect we were forced to keep showed no google hits, not even one, indicating it was not a common misspelling. Wiki is addicting. I need to get to work! Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! the rampant DELETE!!!!! KEEEP!!!!!.  I can't believe the arguments used for deletes and keeps, "I never heard of it,"  "He only wrote four books, none about 2 million on Amazon."  The world exists outside of the net, and you better get to it if you want to keep your connection to the on-line community.  I do want to know the arguments for the keep sometime, though.  KP Botany 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that deleting it conflicts with an internl Wikiproject policy of including articles on nomina nuda (which I object to, since by definition there is nothing to say about nomina nuda except "this name was printed somehwere", and 95% of the time nobody can even say exactly where that somewhere is). But I am willing to defend our policies here since others disagreed with me on this point. The argument for keeping nomina nuda articles boils down to the fact that we should strive to be comprehensive, and other internet sources such as George Olshevsky include nomina nuda. Dinoguy2 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So far, no response, but it's still early, and I have other leads. I'll let you know what's going on as soon as I know. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unicerosaurus up for deletion

message: Did anyone else see this? Might this be of use on our article? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty cool! As for using it in the article, won't citing a comic about a Wikipedia article in that same Wikipedia article make the space-time continuum implode or something? (or in other words, I bet there's a policy against self-referential information) ;) Dinoguy2 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get your hopes up guys, I'm only passing through, not here to stay for a solid chunk of edits. Anyway, citing the about thingy in the article would be self-referencing & is generally frowned upon. It would be kind of like putting in the Triceratops article - "On 7 January 2007, Triceratops was on the Wikiproject Dinosaurs collaboration list!". Just seems kind of silly really. Now if it were an outside comic, that would be a different ball game... Anyway guys, (& girls if there are any), have a great New Year & I trust you all don't miss me that much. I see the project page has been polished a bit. Anyway, have a good one... :) Spawn Man 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, put a small thumbnail on the talk page for fun.  Although there still is the space-time continuum concern.... KP Botany 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's Thagomizer article featured in comic

message: No one had mentioned it yet, so I thought I'd point it out: Diplodocus has been named a Featured Article. J. Spencer 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Pats on the back all around, fellows. One more proof how great this group really is; thanks to all. I see you already added it to the list of project achievements; thanks for keeping it up to date! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplodocus featured 

message: Hi, I've done a few edits and feel the gulf between this article and FAC has diminished a bit, so anyone who wants to get involved is most welcome. cheers Cas Liber 07:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will work on it tomorrow. but for now, it's past my bedtime! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Triceratops]] next.... 

message: I must still understand why  pronounciation hints of dinoasurs names are provided, when they give simply the way a normal anglophone would pronounce it. Instead, I think, if they are written in Latin, Latin form should be given. Or not? I think that these are words in a foreign language for them, so they should learn to pronounce them correctly. When we in Italy pronounce foreign word we at least TRY pronounce them in (hopefully) the correct way. Let me know and good work. --Attilios 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "they give simply the way a normal anglophone would pronounce it" Becasue this is the English Wikipedia? English speakers tend to pronounce Latin and Greek anmes a certain way, and whether or not this is correct, that's the way it is. For example, -saurus is almost universally pronounced "SORE-us" by English speakers, whereas the technically correct pronunciation is "sour-OOS". Dinoguy2 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounciation

message: Since we're drifting now...
The ones I had in mind, and why, were (and granted, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel, so we've done very well):
*Anoplosaurus: distinct but poorly known ankylosaur with a bunch of chimeric species; redirects to Acanthopholis
*Basutodon: list says a nondinosaur, but redirects to Euskelosaurus
*Calamosaurus: redirects to Calamospondylus, but is not "that" Calamospondylus (not that I want to get into Aristosuchus-Calamosaurus-Calamospondylus with anyone)
*"Carnosaurus": the same deal as "Coelurosaurus" and "Tyreophorus", but redirects to Carnotaurus
*Chiayusaurus: borderline; could be from the Jurassic, in which case it probably isn't Asiatosaurus
*Claorhynchus: explained above
*Orthogoniosaurus: tooth taxon from India; there is no particular reason to assign it to any one of the multiple valid Lameta theropods
*Phaedrolosaurus: because the whole reason Xinjiangovenator was named was because Phaedrolosaurus was indeterminate
*Polyonax: there's no way to tell it from Triceratops, Torosaurus, or "Diceratops"
*Zigongosaurus: because no one can agree if it is Omeisaurus, Mamenchisaurus, or its own genus, and it comes from a formation intermediate in age to the two.
There are a couple others ("Coelosaurus", Hierosaurus, Marmarospondylus, and Parrosaurus) that could be added on the grounds that there is no overwhelming morphological reason to refer them to what they've been referred to, but they're all exceedingly dubious and no one really cares, except for Parrosaurus, which as Hypsibema missouriensis is somehow the state dinosaur of Missouri. J. Spencer 04:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Carnosaurus and Coelurosaurus were probably mispellings of Carnosaurs and Coelurosaurs, maybe they should redirect to those groups? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dinoguy2 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind that idea, since nobody has ever taken the names seriously.  How about a little paragraph at the bottom of the relevant articles, i.e. "The informal name "Coelurosaurus", coined by von Huene in whatever year, appears to have been a typo, as he was really intending to refer indeterminate remains to Coelurosauria per this DML message" (you get the idea)? J. Spencer 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Dinoguy2 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I did this with "Coelurosaurus" at Coelurosauria, so have a look and see if you like it.  If so, the paragraph can more or less just be copied and pasted to the other articles, with the names changed, and the same link. J. Spencer 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Redirects into Articles (was: RE: Junior synonym policy)

message: ...has been nominated as a Featured Article by the hard-working Cas. If any folks here have ideas on how to incorporate further information or fixes for the article, now would perhaps be the time. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 14:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray -nom successful Cas Liber 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Triceratops]]''

message: It was getting big, so I hope no one minds I took off the last stuff from 2006. J. Spencer 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. In fact, thanks. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 9

message: Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied this over from the front page, as I figured we'd pay more attention to it here. J. Spencer 15:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microformat

message: I have been over that critter's article, albeit briefly. It reeked heavily of the probably obsolete concept of "bird" monophyly (compare the better discussion in Buitreraptor to a blunt statement like "The shoulder girdle of Unenlagia also shows adaptations for flapping and, since at 2 meters (6 feet) long Unenlagia was probably too big to fly, this provides further evidence [sic!] that it evolved from flying ancestors."). But there are some points I don't feel ready to write about or can't source properly; see the article source for annotations. Dysmorodrepanis 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "probably obsolete concept of "bird" monophyly" So birds are paraphyletic if they include dromaeosaurs, unenlagiines, etc.? If so, why exclude those forms? Anyway, if flight evolved numerous times within maniraptora, then a whole lot of articles are going to smell this way until the published literature catches up with such a revolutionary idea, since most flight related characters have been interpreted as having to do with Avian flight until extremely recently. Dinoguy2 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Unenlagia]]