Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 18

message: Hello. I'm a user of the German WP and currently working on Stegosaur articels. I stumbled across Dravidosaurus, which is considered a Stegosaur according to my books: Weishampel/Dodson/Osmólska: The Dinosauria, 2004 and Fastovsky/Weishampel: The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs. The English article about Dravidosaurus says according to more recent studies he is a plesiosaur; but then are only 2 sources from the 1970s and 1990s cited (except for the book from 2004, but this clearly states he is a stegosaur). Are there any younger sources which could clarify the position of Dravidosaurus? Regards --80.108.59.151 11:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been confirmed that the chapter of The Dinosauria (2004) on stegosaurs was written before Chatterjee's finding nothing but plesiosaurs at the site, and it wasn't fixed. J. Spencer 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought Dravi was a stegosaur? Never heard of it being a plesiosaur before... Spawn Man 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Dravidosaurus]]''

message: You might have already come across this one. It is a great reference for anything that regards general paleontological issues. For in older (as per date of description) and little-studied taxa, you often have to make most of the information to be able to go beyond stub-class. Paleobiogeography for example is not appropriately considered in most publications before the 1960s or so, as plate tectonics was simply not widely accepted before then; ditto stratigraphy, taphonomy etc. This book is very helpful to get an idea what the current baseline in paleontology is, and in a pinch it can be cited on almost any non-specific issue. It'll help you to go from simply reading and summarizing the sources to understanding them and reading between the lines. For example, even with the new understanding of the opisthotonus, Archie's common death pose is not simply due to that - it's only the presence of considerable amounts of feathers that suggests it indeed was. Why so? See chapter 3. Dysmorodrepanis 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, looks interesting! I'll look through it when I get time. Sheep81 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A very nice and citeable resource

message: OK, Majungasaurus looks like it will get over the line - what next? Dropzink is working on Plateosaurus, while Herrerasaurus and Lambeosaurus are still there. Or, something out of left field..anyone?cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not Herra yet; its paragraphs are still too stubby in some places and it is not long enough overall IMO. Also, its one external link looks weird all alone at the bottom. Lambey is a lot better, but the Classification section is a bit out of position in terms of where the sections should go - a shuffle of the subheading sections is in order. And of course Platey is not even near ready yet - the lead isn't long enough, nor are the sections or paragraphs. So if I had to choose, I'd say Lambey after a shuffle of the sections so that it flows better... Or maybe the Cretaceous tertiary extinction event which could make it if we worked on it a bit...? Spawn Man 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spinosaurus? - Homer: "You've been pitching that one all night." J. Spencer 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a long time since I've looked at Spiny - he's looking alot healthier that's for sure....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Still a lot of work though... Spawn Man 11:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lambeosaurus and Spinosaurus look in the best shape to me. I'd go with one of those. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I beg to differ - Spiny is waay off. It'll get blasted for its short paragraphs straight away. I'd have to say it'd go Lambey, Herra and then Spiney... What condition is Allosaurus in? Spawn Man 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barely even started; a lot of things in the air lately have been diverting attention. J. Spencer 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Lamby's looking pretty good to fall voer teh line next while more extensive work is done on Spiny and Herrerasaurus (can't really make a cutesy vernacular name out of that one easily..)...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes you can - Herra. Sounds like Herrer, but cutsier... ;) Spawn Man 06:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just threw in some stuff from Parasaurolophus to help fill out the paleoecology and paleobiology sections, which seemed thin and non-comprehensive. J. Spencer 00:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Lamby's great features are the excellent illustrations.....oh now look what Sheepy's gone and done...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speed demon! How many times per minute do you refresh your watchlist, Cas? Hahahaha Sheep81 01:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I obviously think Acro is pretty good or I wouldn't have posted it from my sandbox, but I think it could really use some images for one thing. I'm not really sure about the taxobox image, it came from the Russian wiki and I can't vouch for its copyright status. I'll be gone tonight and tomorrow (starting now), so I won't be able to do much with the article until Sunday. Have at it. Sheep81 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Next'' one for FAC then?

message: Biological issues in Jurassic Park is, IMAO, a demonstration of one of Wikipedia's principal strengths: an interesting article on a valid subject that you'd never expect to see in an ordinary encyclopedia. Unfortunately it was largely written by anonymous users with a grasp of dinosaurs but less of WP conventions, and an extremely isolated article, and it looked both when it was AfD'd due to OR concerns. There the idea was found valid, the only concern was whether the article should be improved or destroyed entirely and started from scratch. The discussion is now temporarily suspended (first time THAT worked) and we need your skills for the former, both in knowledge and in manpower.
There's time until the end of August - likely extendable if necessary, especially since I certainly managed to take my time before asking for help. :| (If it helps, I may be diagnosed with ADHD next week.)
I'm still new to WikiProjects, so if you have suggestions or better ideas please voice them, and if I've gone about asking for help in the wrong way, slap me with a fish. --Kizor 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, giveing the article a qucik once-over, it does seem like a majority of the article is at least original synthesis. How big a problem this is, I don't know. Much of it also lacks sources, I guess because it's hard to find a source that says Procompsognathus was not venomous, etc. Some things, like the lcaim that Chricton wanted human-sized raptors for the novel, shouold be eaisly citable. I'm sure there are dozens of "Making of JP" books out there. Some of it is pure and simple fanwanking (rain impeding the smell of T. rex, etc.). The article needs a major re-write, and I'm not sure if what's left wouldn't be better off merged into the main JP articles. Dinoguy2 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were a political campaigner, I'd say that our organisation should distance ourselves from this article as much as possible. But since I'm not, I'll just say that the article is what could turn out to be a problematic article. Too much OR and frankly, it's one of those subjects which will have people nominating it for AfD. Spawn Man 11:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with quirky dinosaur article 

message: I can't believe we didn't queue this one up to go on the front page...or have I completely missed something....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iguanodon queued 

message: 'nuff said. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot! Well done, Sheep! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was very fast - I'd been waiting for some other nonmembers to comment before I said anything, but for the record I think it's worthy, too. Congratulations! J. Spencer 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohoo, good work guys! Dinoguy2 03:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Majungasaurus]]'' featured

message: I've been thinking about how to get more feedback about our featured article candidates from people who aren't in WP:DINO. We all know our articles are worthy by the time they get that far, and so does Raul654, since he easily passes them each time, but I dunno, it looks kind of sketchy if all or most of the supports are from us. I wonder if maybe a long list of supports from Project members is a bit intimidating to reviewers. So I was wondering if we should maybe set up some sort of very informal Project approval process before sending an article on to FAC. No special page necessary, maybe just on here, before we send an article up to FAC, do a quick tally to see how many of us support (or oppose, of course!) it as written or with certain changes. That way we could hash out our critiques before sending it up, and then on the FAC we can just put like "Support from WP:DINO" with a link to this page or something. Just having one support instead of five or six might convince Raul to let the nomination sit longer, or entice reviewers who might otherwise see a long list of supports and move on to another article that doesn't look like a foregone conclusion. Just an idea I was kicking around in my head at a party last night (lame, I know). Thoughts? Sheep81 10:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea. I'd love to see these things get more input from non-paleo people... Dinoguy2 10:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, I don't want to add another layer of bureaucracy or anything but it might help in this case. Sheep81 10:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a general tail-off in reviewers across the board for FAC, though I might be mistaken on that one. Though I don't like the sounds of making it harder for uz I do concede that it adds some transparency about who is voting. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the problem with FAC? Sheep81 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even sure there is one - there are alot of nominations - I just had a sense that they weren't getting reviewed as much, but then again I only look at a minority of noms. Nothing much on the talk page cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Sheep's idea, and hope it will bring more "regular editors" in to review articles. One problem I forsee is when WP:DINO is split: for example, when 4 of us approve, but the fifth person, who was offline for a few days, shows up and feels the article isn't ready. Does the endorsement get revoked? Or...? We should have a way of dealing with this before it (inevitably) happens. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have a set time for adding comments and then if someone is late, they have to use the FAC page.  Why not try it on Lambeosaurus?   I think it's pretty close, albeit somewhat soft in the lead, and it could use derivations of species names (granted, there are about a dozen mentioned in the article). J. Spencer 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can count me out (In the good way). I rarely support a dinosaur article straight off, ie, I usually have some minor concerns and may put "oppose" until the problems are fixed. Also, I'm not as active on the project right now and probably won't be for a long while, so my vote would not be seen as a another dino member piling on, but rather someone who knows about dinos and contributes occassionally placing their view. I don't want other people talking for me. I'd prefer if we stuck with the tried and tested notification that you're from project dino and may be biased. So no, I'm a firm oppose on this idea, but if I was like you guys and voted support all the time, I'd probably support this as well. Besides, why should we doubt ourselves when we all know that our articles are top notch? If down the line someone says our nomination methods are suspect, we can quite easily suggest that they review any of our featured articles and we wont comment on the review. I garuntee you, not one would ever be deleted. We have nothing to worry about. Making us sound like some all agreeing cult would only worsen our situation as you'd be implying that all 70+ members of wikiproject dino agree, which is not possible. So no, bad idea in my books. Spawn Man 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind. :) I agree with your last point.  Besides, we *do* analyze prospectives before we send them out, which is similar to the proposal. J. Spencer 13:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC idea

message: I know Platy article need more enlargement, but how is it now? Please, clarify me all errors you find or say me texts and sections that need changes to do them. Thanks. Dropzink 09:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had time to look closely, and I've got to run, but what I've seen is much improved.  Good work! J. Spencer 13:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you pointed out, the article definitely needs enlargement - there's even one paragraph which is only one sentence long and several others with only a couple of sentences. Overall it looks good, but I'm not so sure about the pop culture section. Keep up the good work. Spawn Man 08:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plateosaurus 

message: I've done a complete restructuring of this article, moving from discussing the geological causes of the event (a separate article now K-T boundary).  I've reviewed most critical clades of organisms that went extinct or survived the event.  Let's be honest, the reason anyone reads the article is for dinosaurs which, because they all went extinct at the boundary, rates about two sentences.  Can someone give some meat to the Dinosaur section of the article?  I've found a very good review reference that discusses the reasons why some organisms survive and some didn't (dinosaurs were big, not very good at hiding from the environmental effects, and needed too much food).  I'm fighting to get it to FAC, so whatever any of you dino experts can do will be greatly appreciated.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be appropriate to include more on the "were dinosaurs on their way out or not already" discussion? J. Spencer 03:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did some work on the dinosaur section.  I didn't feel like getting into a tedious "he said, she said" with various researchers and their papers (which if you check the comments of the next paper chronologically are invariably fatally flawed in some way or another), but the diversity is really difficult to interpret, and at any rate "declining" is a loaded word: if there was a decline in diversity, were dinosaurs on their way out, or just going through a dip that had happened many times before? J. Spencer 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to the dinosaurs being on the way out, I don't want this article to be a dinosaur one exclusively.  I think a full on debate (such as a debate can be done in an encyclopedic article) should be in a fork, because it could take an article to discuss it.  I don't like the paleocene dinosaur BS (I find it hard to believe that through all of the analysis of the K-T boundary, we've found like 4 bones that may be above the boundary).  However, my science brain won't allow absolutes, so if there is evidence it should be presented.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur; all I did was soften the statement, note that there is a debate, and otherwise let it stand.  As you said, there's really not much to say: they went extinct, they may or may not have been declining, and some people say they have scraps from just above the K-T. This article certainly isn't the place to get into the gradualists versus the catastrophists, late 1900s/early 2000s-style. J. Spencer 18:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I happen to agree with your edits.  I was very much concerned about WP:WEIGHT.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event]] FAC help 

message: Dinodata no longer requires registration, so we can get rid of those notes and have the proper links again. J. Spencer 13:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good to hear, J. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we were fixing the links to Dinodata yesterday, there were about four that I completely skipped. These were links to Dinodata biographical pages. I couldn't find them anywhere on Dinodata, despite using the search tool. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I was just using bibliography links and saying so.  The only biography was that of Nicholas Hotton III, and that was under Paleozoica. J. Spencer 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinodata once more available without login