Talk:Confuciusornis

message: Laser flourescence imaging of preserved soft-tissue in specimens IVPP V13168 and IVPP V13156 is used to argue for powered flight in Confuciusornis. I'll work on adding the information in the study to the article this weekend. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also has some free images, if any are usable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded. Perhaps the image of the propatagium/postpatagium under flourescence compared to chickens would be appropriate under Feathers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Sounds like they bought the copyright from the artist to be able to publish the artwork in PeerJ. Otherwise I would have expected the copyright note below in the image caption. Furthermore, PeerJ's policies exclude copyrighted content: "Authors cannot use copyrighted material within their article unless that material has also been made available under a similarly liberal license." I would tend to say it is fine to upload the picture, but I'm not entirely sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll bring it up on Commons, there should be some copyright experts there... In the meantime, I wonder if our current restoration is directly wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The artist said the writers owned the copyright, and the first author said I could add it to Wikipedia, so I'll do that soon... FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study 

message: please enter your name!
* write section on History of discovery Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do 1 

message: Looks like we are largely done with ToDo 1. To keep track of what is still missing, lets have a second ToDo with more specific points!
* Incorporate Li et al., 2018: "Elaborate plumage patterning in a Cretaceous bird" . Currently has only a single sentence.
* Incorporate Jiang et al. 2014  on pyroclastic flows and taphonomy, something for the paleoenvironments section.
* Also for the environments section: A Mesozoic Pompeii: History of the Jehol Biota’s Rise and Fall. 
* Incorporate the Zinoview 2009 study . Currently has only a single sentence here, but offers more on lifestyle (e.g., nested in trees).
* Add more on the original squirrel-like posture. This was not first proposed by Martin but by Hou 1995 in the first description. See also Chiappe et al. 1999.
* Add more on the species. Especially include Marugan-Lobon et al. 2011 , which has a review of proposed species. Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the (slow) process of writing the skull section, based on Elzanowski and Chiappe, but will look in the other relevant sources and see if there is anything extra to add from there later on. After that, I'll look at the diet section and probably rewrite it. One thing I have been wondering about is if we can use one of the skull diagrams that are available, or we should make a new one. This one on Commons ise a copy of the one Chiappe 1999, which differs quite a bit from the one in Elzanowski 2018. Then there is also one in this PLOS paper, which also differs, and might be based on one in another paper. Should we use one of these and just state that it is one of various interpretations, or should we have a new one done based on Elzanowski? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! I also think that a new one based on the most recent study (Elzanowski 2018) would be ideal, though using the old one based on Chiappe should work as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Chiappe's, all the reconstructions agree more or less in how they show the front of the skull (which is the best preserved part), so I just noted in the caption that the temporal region is debated. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should state what the red circles mean (important general features: the toothless beak and the the two temporal fenestrae) or remove them? I will see if I can expand the history section a bit next; sources do not seem that revealing in this regard, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The red areas do seem somewhat arbitrary (they are not in the published versions), so I think we could just remove them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now mentioned at least some of the importance of the temporal region which is in red in the caption. I think the skull section is pretty much done, Chiappe and Elzanowski are apparently the most detailed works on the skull. But feel free to shorten and summarise if it's too detailed. Will look at diet and feeding next. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I've been a bit unsure about how to structure the diet section. Chronologically, like in Dilophosaurus? The downside to that would be that potentially outdated info will have a more prominent place at the beginning of the section. On the other hand, if I try to put more up to date/seemingly accurate info at the beginning, it would be a bit biased, since the newest theories are not necessarily the most correct ones. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you really convinced me of the merits of discussing things chronologically during the past years. I would say this is generally the best approach, at least as long as we have space to discuss stuff study by study. The "Growth" section now is also mostly chronologically, and starts with outdated info as well. Maybe we could give some context sentences that guide the reader, such as "Early studies assumed" or similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if chronological, it can also be written more like a dialogue, where later text responds to earlier text (as when Paul evaluates the claims of Welles in Dilophosaurus). Wouldn't be possible otherwise. Arguments against that would be that most readers would want "just the facts", but that's of course not possible if no one knows the facts... FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And last but not least chronology makes it much easier to add new research later on. I noticed the difference when I tried to update Amargasaurus, which was not in chronological order (but now is, at least in parts). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: ToDo 2