Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 13

message: english wikipedia only counts two genera as being part of the ceratosauridae family. hoever many of the articles in other languages sugest others: Sarcosaurus and Yangchuanosaurus arer called part of this family on spainish, french, and italian wikipedia. also, spainish and italian call Chuandongocoelurus, Elaphrosaurus, and Spinostropheus as part of this family (they also both have Lukousaurus with a question mark by it). (it seems that only english and volpuk mention genyodectes.) if any of these articles have reasonalbe info to support them ( they dont cite scources) could someone let me know? thankyou,Ryan shell 01:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceratosauridae 

message: And this time, it's personal. J. Spencer 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally! Didn't we request that, like, six months ago? Alright, everyone ready your vandalism-reverting buttons and POV detectors the night of the 25th... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should just retitle the article "Jesus Horse". Sheep81 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're lucky, I'm still waiting on Archie to be set up (Raul isn't very good anymore at keeping up with the flow of FAs coming through). Spawn Man 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Diplodocus]]'' is the front page article for the 26th 

message: Page was getting a bit long, so I archived it. Feel free to add anything to the archiving subject matter. Regards, Spawn Man 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: An expert touch is needed for this abused article. I've done some minor clean-up, but this article needs more than that. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed a link on it... Spawn Man 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a lot that can be done for it, as far as I know. Historically paraphyletic, now only bearly not monotypic thanks to quirks in some cladistic analysis. Basically the same situation as Coeluridae, only with even fewer studies done on it. I'll see if I can find anything useful when I get a chance. Dinoguy2 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's pretty identical to Ceratosaurus actually. Sheep81 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention needed at [[Ceratosauridae]]

message: Species of Psittacosaurus just got listed as a good article ya'll! Weeee! Sheep81 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! It's a very cool article. Well done, Sheep. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And now Saurolophus is a GA, too! Good work, J! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet! Sheep81 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto for Deinonychus for those of you that worked on it! Sheep81 00:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New GA!

message: Yesterday, user:Android Mouse started tagging articles with his bot with a "Trivia" tag. He tagged several dinosaur articles with the bot; these were automated edits with no user oversight. Subsequent discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bot_adding_.22trivia.22_template_to_articles and on the user's talk page indicates he has discontinued the practice of automatically tagging Popular Culture sections, after receiving several complaints. One user suggested, "If you disagree with an edit made by a bot, revert it." However, after this was done, two users reverted back to the tagged version. There is some discussion now on Talk:Dinosaur about the issue.
One user has suggested that the popular culture section be removed from the article, as he believes the material is trivia. However, the section doesn't read as trivia to me, and the users appear to be conflating "Popular Culture" with "Trivia". Someone on WP:AN stated that the bot tagging "may encourage people to convert trivia lists into verifiable paragraphs," but the Dinosaur article already was in paragraph form.
Removing the popular culture section doesn't seem like a good solution to me because Dinosaur is a Featured Article, which according to the criteria, are supposed to be "comprehensive"; add to this the call (by the same users) for the deletion of the Religious perspectives section. When you start deleting entire sections of articles, there's a very real chance that someone else will come along and decide the article is no longer comprehensive, and doesn't meet FA status anymore. 
Further, whatever decision is made will affect many articles. If the pop culture section on Dinosaur is removed, someone is going to want it removed from Velociraptor, etc. The decision could impact all twelve featured dinosaur articles.
One other problem I forsee is that we have been told the Walking with Dinosaurs images (or other Fair Use images from films and documentaries) can only be used in a pop culture section, with commentary on the appearance. Delete the section and you can't use the image. For several non-featured articles, the only image in the article is a WWD image. And although the Imaging team has worked very hard for the past year to create many dinosaur images, there are still hundreds of articles which lack images, and some Wikipedia images are still not up to par. A WWD image is far superior to that.
Articles without images are more prone to deletion, as they help "fill out" an article, and give the reader a point of reference: something visual that text cannot provide.
I would urge everyone involved in editing dinosaur articles to weigh in, one way or the other, on Talk:Dinosaur, as this issue may well impact many Wikipedia dinosaur articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind if pop culture sections are removed from individual dinosaur articles. However, it needs to stay on the main dinosaur page as the cultural effects of dinosaurs are far too significant to be relegated to a wikilink in the "See Also" section. I've rewritten and cited the section along these lines. Sheep81 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. They should stay where there is something significant to write about. If it can be converted into a reasonable paragraph or so of prose, I think it's usually worthwhile. Dinoguy2 23:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer keeping pop cult sections as long as they are in coherent cohesive paragraphs, as many of the entities in our imagination - movies, kids books etc, and furthermore being able to clarify their appearance in pop culture and how it compares with scientific knowledge. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture in dinosaur articles

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size is now automatically updated every night by a bot that the talented Android Mouse created, at my request. I believe the bot will save us a lot of work. 
It works by compiling a list of articles which are in :Category:Dinosaurs (or a subcategory of that category), sorting them by size, and adding them to the page. If you happen to notice articles on that page that shouldn't be on the page, they may have been added to :Category:Dinosaurs. This tool will help us identify articles which obviously do not belong in that category.
If you happen to notice the bot malfunctioning or giving wonky results, please let Android Mouse know on his talk page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dinosaur articles by size

message: Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions from the Dinosaur FA specialists would be appreciated! TimVickers 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution FAC