Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 12

message: There are a few dinosaur articles that are so technical that I cannot imagine they'd be useful to mainstream readers. I've just done a bit of clean-up on Tyrannotitan, which read like a formal description (still does, really). This one needs work, and there are several ankylosaur articles which also need similar assistance. Any volunteers? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, how about a list? I've done a bit of that on a few. Some of the newer ones...cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 09:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up of articles which are too technical

message: Congrats to all who worked on Iggy - absolutely fantastic job. Well done! cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 08:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Let's go to London, take the top off of the standing model, and hold a banquet. :) J. Spencer 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! At least there would be more room this time! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went there yesterday. It's quite nice really.... Spawn Man 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iggy's up!!! 

message: Started with Iguanodon, wikisurfed to The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs. There's some pretty odd text in there, for example, "Curiously the dinosaurs were reported by the media during their building in a way that a video game magazine would take interest in and report on an upcoming video game and though they failed to meet their deadline, when the models were unveiled they were subject to mass media coverage. Hawkins benefited greatly from the public's reaction to them, which was so strong it lead to what could be considered the first case of tie-in merchandising as a set of smaller versions of Hawkins' models were sold for £30 as educational products." Anybody care to take a stab at deciphering / cleanup?  Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I had cleaned up this article a bit a while back, and had assumed it was written by someone familiar with video games (or video game magazines). Originally, the text had many run-on sentences (20 or so) which I broke into smaller chunks for reader digestion. I really didn't know what to do with the video game reference, but the rest seems fairly clear to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say though Writtenonsand, the way you discovered the text there was like the way Pacman uncovers those little small round things on the screen. Quite remarkable. ;) Spawn Man 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs]] = video game magazine ??? 

message: OK folks, after some amazing work on Iggy and Compy (and Archie by the looks of things), there's a bunch of candidates for the next collab and possibly no backlog (!). Now Thescelosaurus leads but a whole bunch of other dinos are tied for 2nd spot. Who will win.....take your chance and vote now....cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration -- Writtenonsand 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - Given Thescelosaurus is polishing up so well I have fast tracked the next vote to April 1st (instead of mid-april), so knock yerselves out..........cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting on next collab......... 

message: Just a note - this needs expanding in the species section. Actually, this could be an FA one day..cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in all reality, all but the most unknown dino could eventually become an FA... Spawn Man 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, let's get started on "Unicerosaurus"! ;) (Sorry for being flippant). Firsfron of Ronchester 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see your Unicerosaurus and raise you a Scrotum humanum. :-) -- Writtenonsand 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not betting my Scrotum humanum! Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Realistically though, some seem to be easier than others. I found Stegosaurus and Triceratops harder to mould for some reason, than Diplodocus - I see Compy and Archie as pretty coherent really. Parasurolophus has 3 species and there's oodles of stuff on the nasal cavity thingy. cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, big hint to vote.......:) cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasaurolophus 

message: Look what I found at Ecdysozoa!
And a pertinent experiment:
Dracontes 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried it out with Titanosauria, at Clade experiments.  The only problem I'm having is how it handles unnamed clades; their "stems" become very short, crowding that part of the tree. J. Spencer 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for lack of a better thing let's use this HTML snippet: unnamed for unnamed clades. That's what I used on the expanded example above. Dracontes 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me! J. Spencer 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Tell me that's not sweet (although overly detailed and too close to the real one). J. Spencer 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not to sure about all the technicalities in paleontology, but you guys seem excited about this & it does look pretty cool. Can we use this template on all our dino articles, or only ones which need it? Etc? Hopefully we can our articles looking the best out of wikipedia... Spawn Man 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest only higher-level groups (family and above), except for flagship genus articles and/or those genera that don't easily fit into a family (hypsils, iguanodonts, basal coelurosaurs, some basal ceratopsians). J. Spencer 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is super cool! Once I figure out the code, I'll have to replace the ASCII cladograms on some of my favorite theropod groups :) Dinoguy2 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of having the definitions with the cladogram, but then the cladogram starts to get crowded.  Perhaps the definitions could be footnotes, or something similar? (by the way, that Ornithodira cladogram is fantastic!) J. Spencer 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think definitions should be restricted to/discussed in the text. That way the history of/variability of definitions can be presented, and the cladograms are easier to read. Dinoguy2 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's very cool. Does it have a function to make it linear instead of rounded like that? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it does, though I prefer the circular cladograms because they don't imply progression. Have a play around with it yourself, I've only given t a cursory glance. —John.Conway 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clade Template: for all your cladistic and phylogenetic needs 

message: Is Nanotyranus confirmed to be a young t-rex?
:Depends on who you talk to, but it's looking better.  There's a detailed discussion at the Theropod Database; there are apparently some skull and dental differences, but these may fall under age and individual variation.  We should get a better idea this year, because books are coming out on a couple of recent tyrannosaur conferences. 
:(oh, and it's Nanotyrannus, with four "n"s.  That'll make it easier to Wikilink. :) ) J. Spencer 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any of these conferences shed new light on the specimen named 'Tinker' found in 1999?  Last I heard, it was unavailable for further study - is that still the case?  Mistyschism 08:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanotyrannus 

message: Margaret Matthew Colbert died February 24th, aged 95. She was one of the most outstanding paleo-artists of all time, being introduced to the subject by her father William Diller Matthew, and worked together with her husband Edwin Harris Colbert (of Coelophysis and Effigia okeeffeae fame). See the obituary here and Ann Brimacombe Elliot's Charming the Bones (); might be that somebody would like to do a bio of her. Dysmorodrepanis 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Margaret Colbert

message: I am currently doing a collabiration-style project on nannotyranus. Any help will be aprciiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DinoBird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nanotyrannus (I'm not the OP here, just making a helpful link.) -- Writtenonsand 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from mentioning Jane (dinosaur), I'm not sure much more can be done with Nanotyrannus. I think majority opinion is that it's a subadult T. rex. Dinoguy2 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nannotyranus  

message: Its About prehistoric ocean Animals its...WikiProject Sea Monsters
::Shouldn't the title be "Prehistoric sea creatrues"? The current title alludes to Nessie, Loch ness & the type, while you want the paleontologist type to visit your page. You current title will probably attract conspiracy editors, undoubtedly useless in the type of articles you want created. Just a thought, but well done for being bold & taking the inititive... Spawn Man 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Releted WikiProject 

message: I'm getting itchy feet to nominate Archaeopteryx for FAC. Sure it may be a little bit off FA standard, but I feel the team does much better work under pressure, especially me as I need deadlines sometimes. I'm just waiting on Firs to do something & then I'll nominate - just so you all know. Compy looks like it's going well so Archie shouldn't interfer. Thanks guys, Spawn Man 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noooooo! Don't nominate yet, please! This one is still so far from FA that it'd get laughed off FA island. It's got 11 red links, a loooong list of species, only 22 references, no DOIs... And that's just the normal stuff we fix before submitting. Archie will be eaten alive if you send it to FAC like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. A bit of motivation never hurt anyone. Besides, I'm not doing anything just yet. 11 red link eh? Let's see what I can do.... Spawn Man 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, I've cut down the number of red links by 1 - a link was missing an "a". I'm thinking that maybe the museums are under different names to the ones in the article. Some investigation might be in order... Spawn Man 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only two red links left. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that WDC-CSG-100? If so, Scott Harmann's reconstruction shows that part of the neck and lower jaw, end of the tail and part of the right foot are missing... See. Confirmation of Scott's reconstruction here. ArthurWeasley 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's WDC-CSG-100. I was confused because Jaime Headden's reconstruction is slightly different. But this document, Mayr et al (2007), plus Hartman's skeletal reconstruction, will be a better source for the article anyway. Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Headden's description is not that different. The same parts are missing although not in the same proportions and except it shows that part of the left foot is incomplete instead of the right one (?!) (Btw the skeletals are signed Qilong). ArthurWeasley 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Headden also shows no lower jaw, while Hartman shows part of the lower jaw. Headden shows missing sacral vertebrae and also shows most of the cervical vertebrae are missing, while Hartman shows most of the cervical vertebrae preserved, and apparently no missing sacrals. That is what threw me. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I'd be more inclined to follow Hartman's skeletals on this one, since he works at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center and I believe has had first-hand access to the specimen. That also means there is probably more unpublished research/observation present in his skeletals, however. Dinoguy2 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to worry about unpublished research, Dinoguy. The .pdf I have (courtesy of Spawn Man) is Mayr, Pohl, Hartman, and Peters (2007). The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 149, 97–116. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Mind if someone from Wikiproject Birds helps? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sabine! We could definitely use some help, and, considering this particular genus, I think it would be a very good idea. Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get hunting in the library this weekend. I know they have a few good books. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks guys for all the work you've been putting in in my absence. My cat died horribly & I'm not taking it too well, so it's mightily appreciated that you guys have made sense out of that PDF & things. Hopefully I can nominate soon, but I've kinda lost the thrill for life at the moment. It seems like one tragedy after another for me at the moment. At least I have my dino crowd - the closest thing I have to real friends on here... Spawn Man 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Archaeopteryx]]'' 

message: I thought I would let everyone know, just in case there was some AfD that I wasn't aware of, that I created a new category: :Category:Featured dinosaurs, to allow for an easy navigation of all the dinosaur articles that have made it to featured article status.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think self-referential categories should be avoided in article namespace. Such a categorisation system could be incorporated into the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page template, though. Mgiganteus1 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all "self referential". It's not like creating a category called "Triceratops", it's a category that's (from the look of the work being done) is going to be expanded. The problem is there is not easy way to even know which ones are featured. Most people don't know about WikiProjects, let alone what specific ones we have, and don't venture into the discussion page to click the WikiProject Dinosaur link. Matter of fact, I've been on Wiki since 2005, and I didn't realize there was a WPD until I noticed the userbox on your page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a single other "featured [blank]" category that I am aware of... dinosaurs must be pretty special if they are the first! Sheep81 04:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Anyone else see this? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got the paper. J. Spencer 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oryctodromeus

message: I am literally bubbling to nom Archaeopteryx & as per my comments on the article's talk page, I am now requesting your permission to nominate. There are no other articles on FAC, so this would not disrupt anything & if we work together, the article only has minor things which need to be fixed. The dino team can & has worked under pressure before, so this will be a breeze! Have I ever lead you astray before? Erm, well there was that one time... So...? Spawn Man 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - Nom'd it now... :) Spawn Man 06:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to nom

message: Obviously. Archive 10 covers January, and Archive 11 covers February. J. Spencer 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives 10 and 11 created

message: Anyone have any? I've been working with what I have, which is not a lot, and Google searches haven't yielded fantastic results. I can't pay $10.00 per paper, but [tempting voice] I can send a helpful user tickets to JP4 when it comes out...[/tempting voice] Firsfron of Ronchester 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got a copy of Dodson's The Horned Dinosaurs, it'll get you through the night no problem, but here's where to get Brown and Schlaikjer 1937 (S. parksi). If you come across anything in particular, I'll see if I can get it at the U of M —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J. Spencer (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AMNH site has a couple other centrosaurine papers as well; they used Monoclonius for everything back in the day. J. Spencer 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated, J. Yeah, I know about the overuse of the name Monoclonius. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: JP4 you say!?! Wow! Just a problem though... how are we going to get the papers on the dinosaur? For one, they're extinct & if they weren't, they're pretty tall & we'd need a ladder to get the papers on top of them... A problem indeed.... Spawn Man 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Papers on ''[[Styracosaurus]]''?

message: I think we need more members for the wikiproject, to make things easier on ourselves. So I've decided I'm going on a recruiting campaign. I've got nothing else to do (And I've done it before with this project), so it shouldn't be too hard. I just thought I'd place a few ads here & there & do some other stuff in the appropriate places. We should see a better turn out in a short time & eventually a gross influx of users. Of course that user base will decrease, but if we manage to nab one or two full time dino contributors to the project, then it will be time well spent as we're functioning at about 5-7 people at the moment... Any ideas, leave a message on my talk page. And no, I'm not proclaiming myself supreme project leader (yet... ;)), just thought I'd take control of the PR side of things for a while, if nobody minds... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 07:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More users would be cool. I feel stretched at times, "like butter scraped over too much bread". I've been neglecting some admin duties (more than just the weekly blood sacrifice and midnight candlelight procession through the graveyard) because there just isn't time to do everything. I left some comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Science asking for volunteers, and I think some of the recent activity on the dinosaur pages may be due to those comments. I'm not sure where else we would pick up regular contributors, and with Sheep81 and Ballista gone perhaps indefinitely, and Dinoguy semi-busy in Australia, we're a bit less active than we once were, even with the five or six of us regularly contributing. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be worse; collaborative effort in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi has completely died in the proverbial.....By all means. I had thought of the wikipedia post for announcing fungi or bird collaboration but never quite got round to it...cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in complete support. J. Spencer 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, I'll probably be slowing down my activity somewhat.  I've been at a 1000-1200 clip for the last three months, but I'm anticipating cutting back, maybe to half of that. (yeah, we'll see how well that works out :) ) J. Spencer 22:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally; there was no way you could maintain that pace. I was just awed you were going so quickly for so long. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to do something to avoid repelling new contributors. In mid-January 2007 I edited the Dinosaur article to: correct some serious mistakes in "Distinguishing characteristics"; correct the analysis of the advantages provided by dinos' erect limbs; make the "Extinction section" more balanced without making it longer (it previously mentioned only the Alvarez impact theory, and omitted to mention that a lot of other groups died out at the same time); and improve the balance and readability of some other sections. A few days later an admin reverted my edit because he / she objected to my use of bullet lists. When I pointed out that I had followed the style guide on Wikipedia:Embedded_lists, I was told that nevertheless FAC reviewers would not accept bullet lists (see ). So the admin who reverted my edit misunderstood the rules and / or the FAC reviewers ignore the published rules and impose their own preferences. There is no point in my contributing further to any article on paleontology until the discrepancy between the published rules and admin / FAC reviewer practice is resolved, as my contributions might be arbitrarily reverted.Philcha 14:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm on a mission 

message: Don't all rush in, but Portal:Dinosaurs is now open!!!! Yay! That's my big surprise!!! I hope you al like it. i had to get someone to create the skeleton for it (Thanks Kirill Lokshin!), but I added the rest. May I make a few requests in my absense, as I know that you'll all be willing to get in there: 
:1)That you don't mess up any of the formatting (well duh...) - I have no idea how to fix it lol. 
:2)The "selected article" & "selected picture" sections mustn't bew touched - They're on a randomisation thingy. plus, I'm only putting out FAs on the "selected article" section too as their leads are complete (you'll see what I mean...) As for the selected picture section, that's open for additions, but could you place any you want added on my talk page & I'll add them.
:3)Any other changes can you run them by me first (well major ones anyway...) as I'd like to be the portal's maintainer (if no one objects?).
:4)The "to do" section is ready to be filled - Just press the edit button on the section & add any links you think need either expanding, creating or something else in the same format as the rest. Please keep this section short, as there are so many that could be better - I've picked out the worst from the huge bulk Firsfron dumped on my talk page lol.
:5)Anything else, pleave a note on my talk page (especially fixes) - Otherwise, sit back & enjoy our new edition to the Dinosaur project!
Thanks a bunch you guys (& girls)! I couldn't have done what I have without you. Regards, Spawn Man 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, don't worry about creating one of those little templates for the portal to stick in articles - I've got it all covered & will do it tomorrow or the next day (Plus it will get my edit count up... ;)) Spawn Man 06:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Totally sweet. Very nicely done! Debivort 08:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looks cool - a good way to focus work outside of collaborations. J. Spencer 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow, cool! This is for sure another milestone on the dino project. ArthurWeasley 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taaa Daaaa!!!!! Surprise!!!!! 

message: Archaeopteryx has officially been featured - And without even a single oppose! Thanks everyone who helped, & even those who didn't (Well not so much...) ;)... Another milestone & another brilliant work of art by WikiProject Dinosaur! Keep going guys, we're doing great so far... Spawn Man 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo, good work guys! And very nce job on the portal SM, while I'm posting. Dinoguy2 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archie's an important fossil, and really deserved it.  Now I need to get working on an FAC for Thescie! J. Spencer 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Cas has Feathered Dragons and I'll try to synch our Wellnhoferia article with Archaeopteryx. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, man, I spaced!  Elzanowski 2002 is in Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs, not Feathered Dragons. J. Spencer 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if Cas has that one... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archie is featured! 

message: Okay, I did it, so you all can stop bugging me now. :) Anyway, I think it looks good. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thescelosaurus's the place. J. Spencer 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've supported, of course. Good luck. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thescelosaurus]] FAC 

message: There's a typo in Benton's online classification, which is reflected in the dinosaur classification article. It looks like this:
* †Cohort Deinonychosauria
** †Family Troodontidae
** †Family Dromaeosauridae
** Class Aves
The daggers indicate extinct taxa. So either Aves has to be outside of Deinonychosauria, or the dagger before Deinonychosauria doesn't belong there. Could someone with a physical copy of Vertebrate Paleontology verify? In any case, we need to footnote the discrepancy.
| Pat 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a physical copy, but I'm sure it's a case of a misplaced indent. Aves should be sister to Deinonychosauria, not within it. Dinoguy2 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but still needs to be cited. | Pat 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor classification problem 

message: I'd like to provide illustrations for some of the articles that currently don't have any.  I would like to know what your feelings are about a life restoration based on incomplete material?  I am starting with Enigmosaurus.  Providing the other features are in keeping with known Therizinosaur material, is this satisfactory for inclusion? Mistyschism 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mistychism and welcome! Life restorations based on incomplete materials are just fine as long as they are on line with the current scientific "best guess" on how the animal would have look like. We sure can need your help as they are still hundreds of dino articles missing a picture. You can submit your artwork on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review page. There is also a sign-up sheet on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List page. Looking forward seeing your Enigmosaurus ArthurWeasley 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration Guideline Clarification please 

message: So why do Auroraceratops and Archaeornithoides implicitly state just the contrary? Dracontes 08:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're wrong. I've changed it. John.Conway 08:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Species binomial isn't a genus, right?

message: Thesci is now a FA. Well done to all the team who contributed & especially to Spence, who nom'd. Unfortunately that leaves us with 13 featured dino articles, so keep on popping them out or we might suffer from bad luck... ;) In other news, I've added a new DYK section to the Portal & will add Thesci to the featured article section there soon too. I've also updated all pages regarding achievements also, so you you guys don't need to update. Regards, Spawn Man 06:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: Per a suggestion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jurassic Park (film), I'm looking for any fellow dinosaur fans to come help copyedit the article. Anyone willing? Thank you very much if anyone accepts. Alientraveller 12:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Park FAC 

message: Recently, Circeus brought up that the various cladogram formats we're using have accessibility issues and suggested that we look into EasyTimeline or a similar function.  I've had a look at ET, and although I don't know much about accessibility, it is a lot of fun to use once you get the hang of the coding.  With some assistance from the author of the extension, I've been trying to see if it will answer our purposes, and I've got two examples for your perusal: phylogeny and phylogeny plus larger distribution.  These are not true cladograms, but use phylogeny plus geographic location plus stratigraphic position to plot dinosaurs.  Colors correspond to landmasses, branching points are arbitrary (put at 2.5 million years here), and age is only done to the stage level, because I didn't want to get into coordinating arbitrary smaller divisions at this time, but it's very easy to chuck in new dates.  In the second graph, the section below the divider is for taxa that have been called hypsilophodonts, but are not included in the tree, but we could just as easily just have a distribution graph.  We can also add higher-level taxa names to the trees, either by naming them outright on the phylogeny, or numbering nodes and then identifying them in a caption or legend. There is also a link (currently nonfunctional) that would point to a page where we could explain how to read these.  I think timelines like this could work well in tandem with a cladogram; one would be clean and dedicated to phylogeny, and the other could put names in the context of time and place.  Anyway, what do you think? J. Spencer 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like it would be excellent for making phylograms (cladogram+stratigraphic distribution). The only thing would be that this is getting close to original research, since I rearely see nything like that published. I guess it would be ok if all the phylogeny, stratigraphy, etc. are sourced, but then you're still in the realm of original synthesis. Dinoguy2 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh--just looked up the term. I'd always heard phylogram for this type of tree, but it looks like it should actually be chronogram. Dinoguy2 05:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if we stuck to single references, like the Dinosauria II, or Theropod Working Group papers for coelurosaur groups, it wouldn't be original research so much as showing the information in a different way.  I know that some of Sereno's papers have incorporated a time aspect, and occasionally location (but not as I did), because he's interested in questions of biogeography and timing of dispersals. J. Spencer 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if I was to clean up the second one and put it up on the Hypsil page, and see what kind of reaction it gets? J. Spencer 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timelines, cladograms, and everything 

message: Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Dinosaurs has a list of the dinosaur articles I've nominated for the set; I used GA and FA as a basis, but that may not fairly represent Dinosauria (for example, no prosauropods are on that list). Alternate suggestions might be more workable; user:Circeus suggested we could stand to lose some of the lesser-known genera, but I worry then that we won't have a representative group of dinosaurs, and considering the uncited, messy stubs other people have nominated, I think quality should be a big factor in determining what goes on the CD, instead of how well-known a genus is to the general public, but I realize I might well be in the minority. I saw that J has just doubled the size of Lambeosaurus tonight; perhaps a few others might be nominatable (is that even a word?)?
On a completely unrelated note, I'm finally getting a copy of the "Unicerosaurus" article, and can at last expand that stub. Woot! A lead finally paid off. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Set nominations for the 2007 CD

message: Bird Is Wikiproject Birds' collaboration of the month. We hope to have the thing featured soon. If any of you nice dinosaur types have the time could you come and check over the dinosaur/bird section of the article, particularly help with citations (the statement In fact, the bird-like hip structure also developed a third time among a peculiar group of theropods, the Therizinosauridae. for example) that would be fantastic. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bird]]s and Dinosaurs 

message: Hi all,
This recent article in The Guardian discusses our Dinosaur article, and may be part of the reason we're getting a lot of recent Christian POV edits (Biblical accounts of floods and giant monsters) inserted into Wikipedia dinosaur articles. I've removed some unreferenced stuff today, but I thought I'd leave a warning here. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen almost the same comparisons in that article elsewhere, a few months ago, in my local paper.  Hmm... J. Spencer 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Honestly I don't care if it is biased against Christian beliefs, because Christian beliefs have no bearing on scientific reality. Just because someone believes something wacky doesn't mean it has to be included. Sheep81 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed - the simple analogy should be that, as scientists, we wouldn't go edit the "Biblical creation myth" article to indicate that earth was created in the big bang and that evolution generated organismic diversity. Debivort 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific explanation is not even mentioned in Origin belief, Creation according to Genesis, or Creation (theology), except in wikilinks to refer you to the science articles. It is barely mentioned at all in Creation within belief systems, and there only where it refers to The Great Story. There's no scientific influence in the belief pages, so I see no reason why belief systems should have any influence over the scientific pages. Sheep81 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of wacky... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading things like that puts me thorugh something like the stages of grief... denyal, confusion, anger, sadness... Dinoguy2 06:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am cool with it as long as it keeps them out of our hair... they can do whatever they like there. Hey, that sounds like acceptance, haha. Sheep81 06:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only emotion I feel when I read that article is mirth: "pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood". It must have been pretty difficult for Noah to get a pair of each kind of dinosaur onto a 500 foot long boat! That must have been one heck of a trip! Also: it raises so many silly questions: why does the article state "dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Jurassic" and also state that according to scientists, dinosaurs became extinct "at the end of the Cretaceous period"? Is "creationary" a word? Can the word "genus" be used that way? And most importantly, did Jesus really ride dinosaurs? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some creationists suggest that juvenile dinosaurs, or even eggs, were brought onto the ark. But most creationists defending the ark have to resort to special pleading when dealing with the insects. Dinos may be big, but bugs outdo em through sheer numbers! Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always loved the idea of Noah trekking through the amazon for years, identifying and collecting millions and millions of beetle species... Dinoguy2 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you know, Noah did have three sons. They probably helped collect animals. At an estimated 5,000,000 species of beetles, that's only 1.25 million beetle species per person. And if the wives also helped, that's just 625,000 beetle species. Totally plausible. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that effort to save some bugs and they couldn't even find room to save two unicorns. Dag-nab it. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure they saved two unicorns! And later, a fossil of one was dug up. Or maybe the unicorns were the "unclean", filthy animals. Then they deserved to drown. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian claims of POV and Guardian article

message: Anyone have any objection to sending this article to Good Articles to go along with the Featured main article? Please improve at will. Sheep81 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully-cited, comprehensive (now that the new info has been added), and well-written. No, no objections here. We might want to blueify some of those red links, but I think it's an excellent candidate. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with it. J. Spencer 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, it's done. Sheep81 03:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck, Sheep! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Species of Psittacosaurus|Species of ''Psittacosaurus'']] to GA?

message: Dinosaur size lists "Smallest theropods". Do we want to change that to "Smallest non-avian theropods"? -- Writtenonsand 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me, to be technically correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur size / Non-avian theropods 

message: I've made a pretty good start with resurrecting the Dinosaur renaissance article, but I'd like you guys to look it over (I suspect a lot of you don't have it on your watchlists). In particular I think the section on the meteor impact needs putting into scientific context, and the section on warm-bloodedness needs more on bone histology. It  also needs a section on the changing theories of dinosaur behaviour - nesting, etc. —John.Conway 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to watchlist. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't even known there was such an article. Sheep81 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see you back Sheep. Hopefully you can make your stay longer this time round... Looking great guys, keep up the good work! :) 203.160.124.17 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dinosaur renaissance]] 

message: I'm not sure why it was deleted, but the Deinonychus skull is gone.  Anyone want to replace it at Portal:Dinosaurs/Selected_picture/3? J. Spencer 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also gone from the Deinonychus taxobox. Seems the original uploader User:Phlebas got it from a stock free photo site and some administrator might have found issues with it. ArthurWeasley 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a stock photo of a commercial model, so double the problems... Dinoguy2 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still like a replacement on the portal page, or I shall lard it up with ornithopods, and we couldn't have that, now, could we? :) J. Spencer 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that ornithischians, and you have a deal! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure the creator of the portal page would be able to fix it. Possibly you could give him another featured picture to stick on there? Are there any dinosaur featured pics out there that are not covered at the portal? If so, replace the deleted image link with that picture... 203.160.124.17 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Spawn Man would be happy to fix it if he was here, but he's holding to his retirement resolution.  It's not too hard to work with, and I'd be happy to stick something else in there myself. J. Spencer 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of ''Deinonychus'' skull image 

message: Hi everybody, I'd welcome comments and suggestions on this core topic that, sadly, has particular relevance to dinosaurs! Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1. Thank you. TimVickers 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why "sadly"? Evolution is a part of life, and dinosaurs evolved during the entire time they existed. Their decendants, the birds, continue to evolve. That's 230 million years of evolution. That said, I'll take a gander at the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, my joke was not all that accurate. Forgive me! TimVickers 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, sorry. I didn't understand it was a joke. Nevermind! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We need an irony typeface! TimVickers 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer-review of [[Evolution]]

message: Hi guys, just a thought I had when perusing the new clado-template which wasn't around last time I was here. It just looks a bit crowded to me because the clade name rams right up against the clade branches before and after it. In Psittacosaurus I added a non-breaking space ( ) after the clade name to give it a bit of separation. You could put one in front also. Here's an example:
Before:
After:
Adds some extra characters but I think this looks a bit cleaner. Anyone else? Sheep81 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks cleaner with the non-breaking space added. However, J was working on a timeline-based cladogram, which also conveys faunal stage information. A nice consensus on which version to use would be good here, for the sake of consistency within the project. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will say that I like timelines, but they require a lot of practice and work to do right.  The clade template does a good job, though, and looks much better than "`--+--" type formulations.  Circeus may have more to say on this, though, since he was the one who brought up the timeline template and mentioned accessibility issues with the clade template. J. Spencer 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that #1 and #2 aren't really good options. Why do #2 when there are better-looking options that look more professional? Beyond that, I'm happy with any of the other versions (liked all of them, for various reasons). The one with the faunal stages and phylogenetic positions conveys the most information, but it also scares the hell out of me, because what happens when J goes on Wikibreak and we need another one made? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding spaces in clado-template

message: As per my comments on the Image evaluation page you guys have, the new dinosaur skull image is hideous & has been placed there without a community consensus with the summary of "being bold, swapping img". This is all very good being bold & the such, but swapping the image on a template which affects over 1000 articles is not the place for being bold. I'm going to change back the image until a clear cut consensus is made. In any case, that particular image had almost no support, with most of the support going towards the multi-coloured dinosaur image. No doubt you know which one I'll be supporting.... Regards & happy Mother's Day. 203.184.60.35 09:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New <nowiki>{{WikiProject Dinosaurs}}</nowiki> image