Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 5

message: Once again, as this page was getting rather long, I have archived the older discussion here to Archive 4 above. Killdevil 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clean slate 

message: Beefart is a geochemist, not a palaeontologist and here treads cautiously (normally he rushes in with all the subtlety of a Muttaburrasaurus). Why is a remark about the habitat of dinosaurs included under the heading "anatomy"? This is illogical. Either the heading ought to be changed slightly or the bit about habitat ought to be shifted elsewhere. Captainbeefart 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent point. I have moved the habitat bit up a little, which has the side effect of highlighting it a bit more. I think this is fine, as the fact that dinosaurs were land animals is pretty fundamental to any definition of Dinosauria... Killdevil 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anatomy. Logic

message: ---Never mind JBogdan 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since creationism is religion, and this page is about science, nothing needs to be done to the page. It belong in the entry for Christianity.Dinoguy2 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: His arguments ONLY APPEAR scientific and valid. They have the same scientific validity as Erich von Daniken's theory that human race became what it is now thanks to aliens. Daniken used in his books similar (or the same) methods as creationists - taking quotes out of context, misinterpreting facts, telling lies and half lies and all well mixed up in an easy to read text. --Dudo2 06:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: JBogdan, the place for discussing any single book on any subject is a local book club, not here. You say you're doing your research; that's good, please do it and come back when you're finished. The research you need to do, however, does not consist of reading one book. There are dozens of books on creationism, dozens more that debunk attempts to scientifically justify creationism, hundreds of books on the scientific study of dinosaurs, thousands more on geology and paleontology in general, and hundreds of thousands of articles on dinosaurs, geology and paleontology. You don't need to read all of these, but you do need to read a representative sample of them, so you have at least a rough understanding of the body of knowledge that they represent. KarlBunker 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In general, JBogdan, Wikipedia isn't a good place to push a Christian POV where it's not appropriate -- there are lots of ruthless empiricists who hang out here, and we tend to look askance at that. The geologic age of the Earth and the time period in which dinosaurs lived are so well-established scientifically as to be wholly incontestable. I would encourage you to consider adding to the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, which was added to Wikipedia in order to provide a good spot for coverage of dinosaurs as understood by various faith traditions. Killdevil 13:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One book doesn't change anything. Wikipedia reflects the current scientific consensus - not the opinions of a single author. And not an author who doesn't publish peer-reviewed scientific papers; simply a religious propaganda text meant for a layman (non-scientific) audience.  Certainly not an author who doesn't even work in the life sciences (his doctorate is in mechanical engineering). Creation science is a joke - give it up. That book only seems persuasive to you because it's based on lies, omissions, misrepresentations and misconceptions specifically designed to appeal to religious people with little scientific knowledge but a desire to believe. People like him are crazies on the fringe of science - the vast, vast, vast majority of real scientists (and almost every scientist involved in the life sciences) regards that young-earth nonsense as religious extremist pseudoscience. JF Mephisto 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi everyone! I'm back from my wikibreak to see that some things just haven't changed. I participated in numerous arguments with numerous editors to oppose creationism & any type of religion in the dinosaur article. I suggested an idea many moons ago & eventually it was completed. I suggested to put any religious views on a page such as "religion & dinosaurs". Now there is a page, Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, where all creationists can blather on about how people grew up with dinosaurs & how million year old bones are really only a few days old etc etc. Put your rubbish on that page. Some mythology stuff is scientific & some scientific stuff is just plain mythical. It doesn't matter what it sounds like, if it says dinosaurs are anything other than what carbon dating tells us, it goes on the linked page provided. Start another article such as Scientist guy who has mental problems, & put his findings there, because it has no relevance here. Read the book over 100 time for all I care, it doesn't go here. Spawn Man 01:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back! But, carbon dating doesn't tell much about dinos. :-) Vsmith 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah Spawn Man, if you really want a dose of creationist POV, spend some time over at the main Evolution article. There's at least ten times as much biblical literalist silliness going on there at any given time. Killdevil 02:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comment, JBogdan. However, this really is not the place to debate the validity of scientific theories. Anyone can write a book; a mechanical engineer's essays are not quite good enough references for a science article. We aren't the judges of a science—the scientific community is (though in practice, it is relatively clear to make some distinctions). For scientific articles, the best sources would be peer-reviewed journals. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue is not whether the author used reliable references, it is that I do not believe the site itself is a reliable reference. As for suggestions on the author's desire to refute theories you thought were well-established, it's really up to you. It is not my place to tell you what to believe or what not to believe. I personally prefer the scientific method to explain the mechanics of the world, but you may choose your own philosophy following science, religion, some combination of the two, or even other philosophies. I believe this conversation would be better suited on our talk pages, if you wish to continue it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a suggestion. Maybe you ought to soberly consider the source of the information you're getting. It's from someone who doesn't have a degree in the life or earth sciences, but in mechanical engineering. It's from someone who doesn't publish scientific papers, only easy-to-read books designed to convince non-scientific laymen. He disagrees with the aging of the earth and plate tectonics - but he's not a geologist. He disagrees with evolution, but he's not a biologist. And 99.99% of the real geologists and biologists deride the stuff he peddles as ignorant pseudoscience. Isn't this kind of telling you somethinG? He's a religious fundamentalist and propagandist. Just because he formulates his propaganda in a way that mimicks science does not mean it is is scientific. Do yourself a favour and get your science from science textbooks, not from ignorant fundamentalists with an agenda to push. JF Mephisto 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates wrong?

message: user:Petaholmes has removed the picture gallery from the article a couple of times, for reasons that are unclear to me. Please use this section to discuss this issue. KarlBunker 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think her reasons were expressed quite clearly in her edit summaries: picture galleries belong on Commons, not on Wikipedia; most featured articles don't use them; and they increase loading time. I agree that the gallery should be removed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see "picture galleries belong on Commons" or "most featured articles don't use them" as being convincing rationales for not having a gallery. Without some further elaboration, those reasons are on a level with saying "Because." Increased loading time may be a valid concern, however. KarlBunker 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of a gree with removing the gallery. It seems to me that any pictures really worth including could be incorporated into the text.Dinoguy2 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From my perspective, the gallery didn't add anything to the article. I didn't find it to be enough of a problem to remove it myself, though. Perhaps if the included images were less of a mish-mash, the gallery would be a much better addition to the article. Killdevil 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree most of the gallery pictures are not very good, so not much would be lost by removing the gallery. There was some excited talk of getting better ones into Commons when the gallery was first discussed, but I guess that didn't pan out. KarlBunker 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the gallery has a place on the Dinosaur article. Compared to the pics in the main text, the gallery gives the lay reader a clue of the dinosaur diversity and thus can motivate him to learn more about dinosaurs. Well, getting better ones into Commons, thats not that easy. But I think we can be happy with the current situation, because there are like 2 or 3 times more dino pics than before. --Dudo2 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically I agree with Peta. I oppose the gallery firstly on principle, because it seems there for its own sake rather than to illustrate the text, secondly because it's already so long anyway and finally because it's a poor selection of illustrations. :-D RupertMillard (Talk) 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of a picture gallery 

message: Caption on warm-bloodedness.
I rather think something like "Mounted dinosaur skeleton casts at ]said museum[" would be better than "Dinosaur models" as that generally presupposes a fleshed-up and scaled (usually miniaturized) reconstruction of the animals, which obviously isn't the case.
The following corrections were made:
I deleted the word "homeotherm" which was in parentheses after either the word warm-blooded or endothermy.  Homeothermy and endothermy are not the same.  Some ectotherms achieve homeothermy (for example, through thermal inertia).
I changed "bulk endotherms" to "bulk ectotherms|inertial homeotherms". Suzanne
:Thanks for your edits, Suzanne. Killdevil 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warm-bloodedness

message: I know that Saurischia are sometimes found with hair- og feather like structures on their body, but what about Ornithischia? Is there ever found anything that looks like hair or some other structures on their body?
:No, the only structures similar to hair or feathers found on an ornithischian are the "quills" of Psittacosaurus, but these are not generally considered to be related to feathers or pterosaur fuzz by most scientists (they're probably a different sort of structure derived from scales, like the square ridges along the backs of some hadrosaurs or the spines along the back of some diplodocids).Dinoguy2 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ornithischia

message: what kind of frog do you need in order to make a dinosaur cloned?Peter cotton tail 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortuanately, you can't clone dinosaurs, frog or not. Finding dino blood in amber wouldn't work, since stuff in amber is all turned to carbon. The best place to find dinosaur DNA is inside bone (that's what it was in the Jurassic Park book), but while they have found preserved blood vessels inside dino bone, there's not nearly enough that hasn't deteriorated to the point where it's useless for cloning. They never find cavemen and dinosaurs buried together, though they do find cavemen with mammoths, and stuff like that. Amber's not very hard to find (no harder than diaomonds and other precious stones), but most is from long after the time of the dinosaurs.Dinoguy2 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wat kind of frog? 

message: Are there any estimates as to how many dinosaurs were killed in the extintion event of 65mya? --Jawr256 09:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone has hazarded an estimate of numbers of individuals: there are estimates of numbers of species only. --Wetman 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks anyway --Jawr256 08:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can analyse a bit and make some very rough orders of magnitude estimates. Reasonable species number estimates range between about 50 and 500. Reasonable average population number per species estimates range between 100,000 and 10,000,000. So somewhere between 5 million and 5 billion individuals if the event was near-instantaneous, flying avian species not included ;o).--MWAK 13:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just out of interest... 

message: "Dinosaur legs extend directly beneath the body, whereas the legs of lizards and crocodylians sprawl out to either side."
This seems to me a bit misleading. Isn't the sprawling gait of crocodiles derived from an earlier erect posture? In that case it would be better to speak of "modern crocodylians", in order to prevent confusion.
--Iblardi 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomy: sprawling crocodylians 

message: "In 2002, paleontologists Zielinski and Budahn reported the discovery of a single hadrosaur leg bone fossil from El Ojo, South America." -- I wanted to ask somebody knowledgeable to clarify just where in South America, but I see that the cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#_note-26) reads: "Dinosaurs that did not die; evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone, San Juan Basin, New Mexico", which would seem to mean that South America isn't in the picture at all. Can somebody familiar with the find and/or article please straighten this out? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the cite note has more information, it's presumably the correct location. I've modified the article accordingly. KarlBunker 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs" section needs a fix 

message: killdevil please stop erasing this very relevant section
when people are arguing "dinosaurs are warm-blooded" and "dinosaurs are related to birds", it makes PEFECT sense to specify external links to discoveries that led them to these beliefs:
===Discoveries related to warm-bloodedness/bird relations===  	 
- 	Some remarkable discoveries have changed scientists' view of dinosaur life. These include: 	 
- 	* Dinosaur heart 	 
- 	* Dinosaurs with feathers 	 
- 	* Dinosaur nests and hatchlings 	 
- 	* Pregnant dinosaur 	 
- 	* Dinosaurs locked in battle
:: It is great that you would like to add external links to the article. You should do so in the External Links section of the article that is already extant, though, rather than add external links to the body of the article in a spot where they disrupt the "flow" of the article text. Optionally, you could find places where the linked discoveries are already referenced in the text, then add your links as references. Take a read through the article -- you'll find that most of this stuff is already in there. If the article doesn't already mention one of your linked discoveries, consider adding a sentence about it where appropriate, then adding your link as a reference. Killdevil 09:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to amazing finds 

message: - 	Some remarkable discoveries have changed scientists' view of dinosaur life. These include: 	 
- 	* Dinosaur heart 	 
- 	* Dinosaurs with feathers 	 
- 	* Dinosaur nests and hatchlings 	 
- 	* Pregnant dinosaur 	 
- 	* Dinosaurs locked in battle
:: It is great that you would like to add external links to the article. You should do so in the External Links section of the article that is already extant, though, rather than add external links to the body of the article in a spot where they disrupt the "flow" of the article text. Optionally, you could find places where the linked discoveries are already referenced in the text, then add your links as references. Take a read through the article -- you'll find that most of this stuff is already in there. If the article doesn't already mention one of your linked discoveries, consider adding a sentence about it where appropriate, then adding your link as a reference. Killdevil 09:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discoveries related to warm-bloodedness/bird relations

message: Make a list of biggest world wide museums. It would be nice. --Comanche cph 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it doesn't list by size, there's already a List of museums.Dinoguy2 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museums? 

message: For this part of the article It says somthing about that there was recent T-rex finding.  It didn't give really any detail on where it was or if there is another article about it--Scott3 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need detail 

message: Due to a growing quantity of dinosaur news, features and pictures, livescience recently created a main dinosaur page, http://www.livescience.com/dinosaurs/ that has relevant and interesting information as an external link.  I am with the company and felt like this would be a good fit on the external links area of the Dinosaurs page.  thanks in advance Starexplorer 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dino external linkage request 

message: I suggest that enough time has passed that we should unprotect the Dinosaur article. It has been several days since the Jesus vandal last made an appearance...
It's sort of contrary to Wikipedia philosophy to keep the page off-limits (especially as many new users may be tempted to become involved in Wikipedia via the Dinos article, given the popularity of the beasties). Killdevil 21:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Semi-Protection 

message: Wikipedia has all this stuff about 'bold' and I just did a bit in the history otherwise I felt like I was just swimming in text. Anyway I was about to revert it back but wanted feedback on whether keywords in bold through the article was feasible. Has this been discussed before?Cas Liber 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been done before (Frog#Evolution), but not to such an extent, and I rather think it makes the text less readable. I think general consensus is that words that are already wikified do not need to be bold as well. I think the usefulness is restricted to those readers who have a basic familiarity with the subject, and just want to pick up keywords. Perhaps it would be wiser to initiate a wikipedia-wide discussion about including keywords for articles if that is what you want; however, note that this is similar to the existing concept of categories. A boolean engine for categories is unfortunately missing, although Google can help here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To boldly go........