Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 16

message: How's this then - get Tarbosaurus, Alioramus and Gorgosaurus - and Tyrannosauridae and Tyrannosaurus in Popular Culture to GA for a Featured Topic.....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've spruced up gorgy quite a bit (thanks to alot of groundowrk done by sheepy), and intend to work on Tarby (my favourite dino), which leaves teh pop cult and family pages...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ....or a Dromaeosaur Featured Topic, with Utahraptor, Dromaeosauridae and others to GA....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Topic? 

message: (Wow this is so exciting), now while Deinonychus was being flame-grilled at FAC, Herrerasaurus, Lambeosaurus and Parasaurolophus have all had a spit an' a lick of boot polish and I'd say not much separates them for a tilt at FAC. Given Justin's done a ton of work and is most familiar with them, I guess his input on which one we launch next at FAC would be good, as well as other folks.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my comment above, great work everybody! However, I must disagree Cas - I think out of the three you mentioned Herrera is the furthest from completion. It still has numerous stubby paragraphs, especially in the Description section. This can be easily fixed, but if we had to go with one right now, I'd say it would be a pretty close tie between Para & Lambi. I think we should go with one of those two whilst we work on Herrera & when it gets featured, we can nomiante both of the remaining ones. Of course, since J has worked on the article frequently, I'd like to hear what he thinks since no one cares what I think lol! Cheers, Spawn Man 05:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think Parasaurolophus is the most comprehensive and most interesting of the bunch. I have a short to-do list on the talk page, but the wild card is Dropzink's skull drawings, because I'd really like a diagram of the different species' skulls. Spinosaurus is also deserving of consideration, I think.  I'd order them P>L>S>H at this point. J. Spencer 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd have to agree with that too... Spawn Man 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me; parasaurolophus it is then cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pop culture section makes my eyes bleed but otherwise, right on. Sheep81 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's bad now, check it before I started revising it. :) I'm certainly not wedded  to the darn thing, but if pop culture is to be included, well... I honestly have no clue what to do with that section; Para is one of those obvious, interesting-looking dinosaurs that shows up as stage dressing to make a scene look appropriately dinosaur-y, but rarely does it do much of anything. J. Spencer 05:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would except my eyes are already bleeding. Heh. :) Sheep81 05:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are the major caretaker of the article I'm not going to barge in and delete a whole section, but if you want my opinion, a dinosaur that is just "stage dressing" probably doesn't need a pop culture section at all. Just throwing that out there. I'm not bothered if you leave it, I'll just scroll down to the references really fast to avoid inflicting eye trauma. Sheep81 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO, delete it. There are times when dinosaurs absolutely need a pop culture section (such as T rex) & there are times when all a section such as this serves is to degrade the article. This is one of those times. The para is very hard to read compared to the rest of the article. Frankly, I wouldn't support any Para FAC if the article still included the section - it's just not needed. Anyway, Spawn Man 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut it out, stuck it on the talk page. J. Spencer 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Next'' FAC

message: Don't worry, I can type Nitron Ninja Apple 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha - welcome :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hay id liek to join 

message: Dear all,
there is a debate going on at AfA about Lions in popular culture, which admittedly is a messy article but couldhave wider implications as there are several dino pages with similar subpages - thus this could set some form of precedent so may be worth debating once and for all there (has it been debated before?). cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Cas - I commented on the AfD, but I definitely think I could do some real work on the article after the AfD's over. It's right up my alley. Spawn Man 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to rename all the Pop cult subarticles Cultural depiction of...(x) - as it is less 'trivial' sounding, though this is more important for critters like Ravens, Lions, Eagles, White sox (whatever they are..)cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it'll work for dinosaurs - lets face it, all it really is is trivia facts, unlike lions where they have been used in numerous depictions in culture. I think we should leave the article names for now... IMHO... Spawn Man 05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, T. rex for instance has only been known for 100 years. Sheep81 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD discussion with wider implications

message: Question on Talk:Scipionyx about the appropriate affiliation of Marco Signore, for anyone interested in such matters. -- Writtenonsand 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered. Sheep81 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scipionyx]]: Quibble (?) wants additional input 

message: Well, what do we want to do with it?  I've been picking at it for a while, but I can't tell that it's any better.  A couple of things I've noticed are that the classification aspect should be more centralized (right now it's in a couple of sections and so runs the risk of being confusing, contradictory, and redundant), and the prose flow is a bit choppy. J. Spencer 01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had sent it to peer review, but this was almost a month ago, and I doubt it will receive any comments this late in the process. Arthur did an amazing job expanding the article, but I agree it still needs work. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not trying to imply that it's bad or anything, just "making it better" in terms of a collaboration.  I'm going to shut up before I put a Breviparopus-sized foot in my mouth. :) J. Spencer 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has also something like 11 red links that need to be addressed. ArthurWeasley 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm back on the talk page.  I just wanted to mention it here to get everyone thinking about it again. J. Spencer 02:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Herrerasaurus]]'' 

message: Just to let you know that a lot of stuff has gone into Archive #13 and Archive #14.  Try to guess what - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised! :) J. Spencer 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: 'nuff said. Have a look. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Parasaurolophus]] now nominated at FAC