Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 7

message: As it has many times before, the Dinosaur article talk page has gotten very long. To preserve the intelligibility of conversation here I have once again moved older discussions on this page to the article's talk archive (Archive 6 linked just above contains the most recent discussions). Killdevil 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived talk

message: Just days after protection is dropped vandalism has become a huge problem, should a protection request be made Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four vandalisms today so far. One yesterday. That's not a particularly high amount on Wikipedia... Weregerbil 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the history page, I can see why this is protected, but nonetheless find that slightly odd.  I find it odd that it's attracting this much vandalism.  Has it been featured lately?  I mean, it's not like it's a particularly controversial topic (George W. Bush and religion are only semi-protected, whilst Communism isn't protected at all) and Stephen Colbert's been nowhere near it (AFAIK, anyway).  RobbieG 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggests it is quite a popular page, getting 4,000 visitors per day, so if someone's going to add nonsense it's quite likely they'll do so here. Hut 8.5 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly right. It's a popular page, and particularly popular amongst school-kids. When this page isn't semi-protected, it gets a lot of IP vandalism, so I did place the page on semi-protection. A quick scan of the last 500 edits indicates there wasn't even a single good IP edit (every subsequent edit by a logged-in user was removal of IP vandalism). In other words, there's no reason to unprotect this article: no IP has added anything useful to this article in months. I could have gone back further in the history, but I didn't bother. Dinosaur is a Featured Article, representing some of Wikipedia's best content. There is no reason to open an article to continuous vandalism from multiple IPs, especially when we are calling this article some of our best content. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--with maybe one or two exceptions, I can't think of any constructive IP edits to the dinosaur articles here... well, ever. And this article is a huge target. I vote for protection, for what it's worth. Dinoguy2 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it protected. Actually, I'd like to see a lot more articles with protection, but that's just me, and would take a change in the prevailing attitudes here.  (How many good anonIP edits have ever been made on Bird, Crocodile, Fossil, or the oddly popular vandalism target Turtle, for example?) J. Spencer 03:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not raising an objection to protection of this article, since it seems necessary given the amount of vandalism, but I don't like it when pages are protected as I believe it detracts from the site's "anyone can edit" premise.  I appreciate that in cases like this it's the only option, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of it.  RobbieG 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the religious looneys you can blame. No offense to them of course, but Wikipedia is scientific & they keep on adding their creationism drivel to the article when there is a clear cut consensus against it. Just like anti-bush people edit George Bush & racists edit any muslim related article. For some reason, Christians think they can get their view point across with vandalism - go figure. We just have to accept that controversial topics like these will always be protected. This article is a centre pint for Wikipedia (everyone wants to know about dinosaurs... well mostly lol) so it has to be in tip top shape... Just my views.... :) Spawn Man 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Christians think they can get their view point across with vandalism.  Not all Christians.  Just thought I'd better point that out.  RobbieG 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Aves (birds) are classified under sauriscia (however you spell 'lizard hipped') not ornithschia (however you spell 'bird hipped').  As they are birds I think it's strange that they're classified like that.  Any views?  Dendodge 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing, agreed. But the Saurischia and Ornithischia names refer merely to a certain passing resemblance in the shape of the hip-bones of certain members of each groups to lizards on the one hand and birds on the other, rather than exact bone-for-bone similarities. Bird-hipped dinosaurs actually have hips that differ in important details from actual birds, in the same way that lizard-hip dinosaurs have hips that differ in important details from actual lizards. Thus the Ornithischia didn't give rise to birds any more than the Saurischia didn't give rise to lizards. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, & don't forget "dinosaur" means "lizard", when their legs aren't actually lizard-like at all (i.e., not splayed).  Trekphiler 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and the more advanced "lizard-hipped dinosaurs" like therizinosaurs and dromaeosaurs actually had "bird hips". Birds could really be called "ornithischian mimics" ;) Also,  dinosaurs aren't close relatives of lizards, but they were named that because, at the time, it was thought that they were a suborder of true lizards. -saurus has kind of become traditional since then, even though it's totally incorrect. I think it's cool that a number of more recent dinosaur names use -draco ("dragon") in place of -saurus. Or even -ornis/-avis/-opteryx, where appropriate. Dinoguy2 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it is makin' 'em harder to spell.;D Jethro Bodine 11:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Phorusrhacos. Phororhacos is a junior synonym. Phororacos appears to be a misspelling. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: " appears to be a misspelling."? Or phonetic...I don't recall if I read or heard it. Either way, thanks for the redirect.  Trekphiler 11:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur relation to birds 

message: I can't find phororacos. Any tips where to look?  Trekphiler 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phorusrhacos. Phororhacos is a junior synonym. Phororacos appears to be a misspelling. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: " appears to be a misspelling."? Or phonetic...I don't recall if I read or heard it. Either way, thanks for the redirect.  Trekphiler 11:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Nomen quidam''

message: Would it be okay (or even accurate) to put a link at the top of the article that read to the effect:
This article discusses the Non-Avian Dinosaurs. For the Avian Dinosaurs, see Aves --Philo  03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be accurate, but it's not appropriate, in my opinion. When people look outside and see a bird, they do not say, "Oh, look! A dinosaur!" Those who are searching for Bird will know what to type to get the correct page, and I cannot imagine anyone searching for "avian dinosaur" as a way of trying to reach Wikipedia's bird article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if they come across the term "avian dinosaur" in another article or some other source of information like (gasp!) a book, then perhaps at least having a Wiki article Avian dinosaur that disambiguates (word?) to this article and Aves makes sense, no? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Avian dinosaurs 

message: I noticed that the dinosaur page mentions Jurassic Park, an exciting popular adventure that is, frankly, not very informative about dinosaurs.  I just read a new novel, Hell Creek, that is recommended by a lot of paleontologists and is fantastic for dinosaur enthusiasts becuase it emmerses the reader in a detailed scientifically accurate world of the late Cretaceous.  This novel is a blast.  I think the kind of people that would visit wikipedia to read about dinosaurs would appreciate a pointer to a great book like Hell Creek.  The simplist edit would be " books and films such as Jurassic Park and Hell Creek..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonnsa (talk • contribs) 08:13, May 6, 2007
:First, please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes.  Jurassic Park is mentioned because the movies and novels were so popular.  That's all.  I am going to check out this book.  Orangemarlin 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then we'd have to include every dinosaur book ever written, and then it would turn into a list, and Transformers would get involved somehow... you see the problem here ;) Dinoguy2 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thing is, Jurassic Park is the single most popular dinosaur book by far and away, with the books being very popular and the movies even more popular. Hell Creek is far more obscure. Titanium Dragon 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I see your point, however from the point of view of actual information about dinosaurs Hell Creek might be the best current science outreach to the public, being both a good read and full of science.  I just thought that if someone went on to wikipedia to look up dinosaurs this would be a perfect book to point them toward.  I found a web page if you want to read about it  ( www.HellCreek.org ).  Well anyway, I thought it was cool.--Tysonnsa 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but it is not a goal to plug books or other items.  •Jim62sch• 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New dinosaur novel 

message: My teacher says that one of few ways how dinosaurs and other repiles evolved quickly is because of a high burst of radiation. He says that would explain how so many new types could appear in a million years or so. Does anyone else think the same? -- My name explains why
:I don't think an explanation like that is needed, because the new types that appeared a few million years apart were not that different from each other. Take a look at Maiasaurua and Edmontosaurus or Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus--they are given different names, but they're only as different as, say, a fox is from a wolf, at most. I don't know of any evidence that says dinosaurs evolved more quickly than anything else. As a group, they were just around for a vey long time, hundreds of millions of years. Dinoguy2 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard of this radiation theory. Are you sure he didn't say dinosaurs evolved and radiated to all parts of the world? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really relevant to the topic, unless a reliable source can be found that presents this theory. Also, I tend to doubt there's such a theory, at least that is still accepted, because radiation in reality tends to damage much more than vice versa, unlike the cliched TV show interpretations. My guess is this is more of an urban legend than anything. The best place to start would be to simply ask your teacher where he got this idea from, and if he can provide sources. --Bonesiii 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, as a wiser man than I noted, "If we learned one thing from The Amazing Colossal Man and Grasshopperus, it's that radiation makes stuff grow real big, real fast." Didn't say anything about speeding up evolution. J. Spencer 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have got to stop quoting The Simpsons when I'm in the middle of taking a drink. My keyboard and monitor thank you. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: He may be refering to a solar event etc. Theories like that aren't worth including, but aren't unheard of. Can't see a solid source on it though. Spawn Man 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, what are our science teachers teaching these days?  Between the Discovery Institute trying to teach the controversy, political correctness, etc. etc. what kind of science education is out there?  A high burst of radiation doesn't cause evolution.  Grrrrr. Orangemarlin 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Besides, as a wiser man than I noted, "If we learned one thing from The Amazing Colossal Man and Grasshopperus, it's that radiation makes stuff grow real big, real fast."" No, it doesn't, it gives them the ability to pass on their properties to mild-mannered science students (who have amazingly hot girlfriends...).  Trekphiler 11:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Does your teacher explain why dinos didn't get any smarter? (Personally, I could care less why they got wiped out; I want to know why they never became us... {Hmm, maybe it wasn't an asteroid, maybe it was dinonuclear winter...})  Lorenzo 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My teacher says...

message: OK, so they weren't as big as X-Men; why'd the ref to the title get pulled?  Trekphiler 11:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: probably the same same reason the human article doesn't list every fictional series about humans. --Philip Laurence 11:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously haven't seen the trivia sections in some articles... Trekphiler 11:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm just going by Wikipedia:Handling trivia.. --Philip Laurence 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others obviously aren't. And I wasn't really serious, anyhow. You'll note I didn't restore a reference (despite being a fan) for fear of triggering (now there's an appropriate word...) an edit war     by Creationists for Gun Control...  Trekphiler 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a separate Dinosaurs in popular culture link that you are more than welcome to post that on if it's not already there. We have been trying to just keep a few major titles on the main dino article. Sheep81 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trivia sections in most articles are an abomination, a blight upon the Internet, and probably make people think (rightly so?) that most of Wikipedia is run by trivia-obsessed fans of obscure TV series. I'd erase every trivia/pop culture section if I could and replace it with only "culture" sections that list really, really well-known or culturally relevent (or, like encyclopaedic) entries. But that's just me ;) Dinoguy2 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of funny that out of thousands of articles, the Tyrannosaurus in popular culture article is the 18th longest dinosaur related article in the Project! Sheep81 03:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dinos for Hire?

message: I removed the template for the wikiworld cartoon since the cartoon was taken directly from the thagomizer article, not this one. "Thagomizer" doesn't even appear in this article. Sheep81 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thagomizer comic?

message: Since it seems like a lot of people feel like we're singling out JP and thereby giving it some kind of approval, I've removed both references to it outside the pop culture section. I also merged the soft tissue and DNA sections, since most of the DNA part was a discussion of JP with no scientific basis (at least none cited). An artifact of this is the picture of amber, which has no relevence now to the discussion. Have any peer-reviwed articles or sources outside JP suggested the use of amber for getting dino DNA? If not, the picture should probably removed. Dinoguy2 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you want to be modified? SalaSkan 18:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is only semiprotected. Almost any editor can make changes if they're appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JP and Amber 

message: News reports in the past few days mention the current Chinese practice of digging up "dragon" bones to grind up and consume due to their rich calcium content. These have been identified as dinosaur bones.  Is this interesting enough to include in the article? rossnixon 02:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really "news", because they've been doing it for centuries, but I think it is certainly worthy of mention in the article. Go for it, man! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Dragon medicine

message: Maybe the reference to the "1933 film King Kong should be edited so as to add "...and its [whatever year it was] remake." After all, the more recent version of King Kong, the one directed by Peter Jackson, also features dinosaurs. Tom129.93.17.135 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reference to ''King Kong'' 

message: :Image:Jurassic Park.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassic Park.svg

message: The article is currently structure like this:
* (Introduction)
* 1 What is a dinosaur?
** 1.1 Definition
*** 1.1.1 Distinguishing features of dinosaurs
*** 1.1.2 Phylogenetic definition
** 1.2 Size
*** 1.2.1 Largest and smallest dinosaurs
** 1.3 Behavior
* 2 Evolution of dinosaurs
** 2.1 Origins
** 2.2 Evolution
** 2.3 Biogeography
* 3 Study of dinosaurs
** 3.1 The "dinosaur renaissance"
** 3.2 Classification
** 3.3 Order Saurischia
** 3.4 †Order Ornithischia
* 4 Areas of controversy
** 4.1 Physiology
** 4.2 Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds
*** 4.2.1 Feathers
*** 4.2.2 Skeleton
*** 4.2.3 Reproductive biology
*** 4.2.4 Lungs
*** 4.2.5 Heart and sleeping posture
*** 4.2.6 Gizzard
** 4.3 Evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs
** 4.4 Soft tissue and DNA
* 5 Possible geological causes
** 5.1 Impact event
** 5.2 Deccan Traps
* 6 History of discovery
* 7 Dinosaurs in culture
* 8 Religious views
* 9 See also
* 10 Notes and references
* 11 General references
* 12 See also
* 13 External links
I propose the following restructuring, to bring material into a more logical order:
* (Introduction)
* 1 What is a dinosaur?
** 1.1 Definition
*** 1.1.1 Distinguishing features of dinosaurs
*** 1.1.2 Phylogenetic definition
* 2 Natural history
** 2.1 Origins
** 2.2 Classification
*** 2.2.1 Order Saurischia
*** 2.2.2 †Order Ornithischia
** 2.3 Evolution [expanded]
** 2.4 Biogeography [including most of the current Evolution section]
* 3 Study of dinosaurs
** 3.1 Size
*** 3.1.1 Largest and smallest dinosaurs
** 3.2 Behavior
* 4 Areas of controversy
** 4.1 Physiology
** 4.2 Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds [seems overly detailed for a summary article]
*** 4.2.1 Feathers
*** 4.2.2 Skeleton
*** 4.2.3 Reproductive biology
*** 4.2.4 Lungs
*** 4.2.5 Heart and sleeping posture
*** 4.2.6 Gizzard
** 4.4 Soft tissue and DNA
** 4.3 Evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs
* 5 Extinction
** 5.1 Possible geological causes
*** 5.1.1 Impact event
*** 5.1.2 Deccan Traps
* 6 History of discovery
** 6.1 The "dinosaur renaissance"
* 7 Dinosaurs in culture
* 8 Religious views
* 9 See also
* 10 Notes and references
* 11 General references
* 12 See also
* 13 External links
J. Spencer (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? I'll totally do it; you know I will. I'm crazy like that. :) J. Spencer (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, these big articles always get a bit jumbled around after awhile. Sometimes they just need a good kick in the ass. Sheep81 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, bummer with these highly-edited articles - price we pay for constant vigilance :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust the paleontologist's judgement. :) No worries here. Thanks for seeking consensus, though... (makes it easier to blame us when the article is de-FAC'd: "They made me do it! Honest!" ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll get around to it today at some point, probably evening CST. One other thing, now that I think about it: "Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds" may deserve a promotion to section status, since as far as I'm concerned it's only controversial with a handful of ornithologists who apparently would prefer that birds had no ancestors whatsoever. I'd like some of the theropod people to comment on this move, though. J. Spencer (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New structure looks like an improvement to me, much more logical. I'll help out with some small stuff as the editing progresses if I can! Also, I think bird origins could absolutely be it's own section, it's certainly one of the biggest topics within this subject currently. Maybe you could even copy/condense material from the bird origins and bird evolution articles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably will need to be condensed; certainly I'd steal some refs from the other articles. J. Spencer (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: potential restructuring

message: The history section states: "The Chinese, whose own word for dinosaur is konglong (恐龍, or "terrible dragon")," but the word is actually a translation of "dinosaur" by Japanese and later imported to China, as the Chinese version of the page says.  Putting the statement in context of history gives an impression that the word was used for millenia. Yoshiki.ohshima (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed? Sheep81 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese word for dinosaur 

message: In order to find POV in this article, one needs look no further then the opening sentence, "Dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, first appearing approximately 230 million years ago." As becomes clearer later on in the article, this is stating the theory of evolution as fact, and no matter how well backed up, it is still a theory, and thus can not be stated as fact. Also, the "Religious views" section is one big chunk of obvious POV. --Mark (Mschel) 04:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now that's an obvious POV: "Any further creationist edits will be considered vandalism". —Animum (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   How is that any more "POV" than forbidding the Earth entry from being edited by Flat Earth Society members?  Sorry, but in science, which covers this topic, views *can* be proven 'right' or 'wrong'.  Creationism has been *proven* wrong.  Editing articles to reflect the state of 18th century knowledge is not good practice in any meaningful way, and should be considered vandalism, since it's deliberate alteration with an agenda. Mokele (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how it works. See WP:NPOV. We are allowed to include minority sources, just not give them undue weight. Flat Earth Society members are allowed to edit the Earth entry so long as the follow the rules, just as creationists are allowed to edit here as well (see "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia ANYONE CAN EDIT"). Regardless of the fact that Mschel's complaint has no merits, he's still allowed to edit the article; to forbid him from doing so would be ludicrous. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, find me a creationist source, then.  Peer-reviewed scientific article only.  Mokele (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DINO has long established that material sourced to peer-reviewed papers is certainly worthy for inclusion on dinosaur articles. However, after two years of repeated requests, there still hasn't been a pro-creationism edit sourced to a peer-reviewed paper. Not on Dinosaur, and not on any of the 1,100 articles on the List of dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Precisely my point. There is no POV issue when there is no dispute on the facts. Mokele (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, it doesn't have to even be a peer-reviewed scientific paper: a peer-reviewed theological article would work, considering the topic. But source it to something better than a self-published website. Peer review is designed to catch mistakes; something that isn't reviewed by peers in an academic field isn't worthy of inclusion because anyone can claim anything in a self-published source. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firs, I came here because I thought it had to be the one of the least controversial articles on the project.  Now I'm going to cry.  And eat more turkey.  And watch a food network marathon!!!  BTW everyone just point these Creationist POV warriors to Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Evolution as theory and fact.  That old canard about Evolution being a theory is kind of silly.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good links to keep handy. Enjoy your turkey and marathon, OM. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't eat much more Dinosaur...er Turkey...meat.  I'm nearly in a coma!  Anyways, after editing Evolution for over a year, I think I have macros that place those links.  I always wondered why the Creationists on this project focus on Evolution for their POV attacks.  I'll bet there are 100,000 articles on Wikipedia that reference time frames, scientific knowledge, etc. that basically blows the crap out of Creationism.  But they ignore those articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the Bible (it would be independent of the topic of dinosaurs, obviously, and an excellent source to use when discussing Creationism vs. Evolution), any other religious texts, or any theological peer-reviewed document can be counted as a source in the "Religious views" section; the reader can decide whether or not to give them any merit for himself/herself. —Animum (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bible isn't a source for anything but amusing stories about nothing.  And we don't ascribe to fringe theories that are unsupported by verifiable sources.  But thanks for pushing your Creationism here.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Enough. There is an undue weight clause in NPOV for a reason. Young Earth Creationist ideas about the age of the earth and related issues are not significant enough to justify mention in the introduction per undue weight. I would like to remind all parties that this talk page is about improving the article not for debating the truth of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible or anything like that. Go to usenet if you want to do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geesh! When this article was featured in 2005 we had this argument about creationist theories and I come back on the verge of 2008 and see it's still going on. Let it go - the dinosaurs were not alive a few thousand years ago, science has proven it. There's much more credibility and proof against the creationist theories than for it. There are suitable sections to place theories and content on those beliefs, but the main article is not. Reminds me of Sunday school when the teacher would make the class repeat that Noah brought dinosaur eggs on the Ark! Sheesh, let it go everyone and make constructive edits... Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 08:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] violation 

message: REgarding this edit;  - it's tempting to write any edit like that off as creationist, but actually the edit that was reverted is totally logical - you can't use "it is known" when the next sentence says that taxonomists "believe" that birds are descended from theropods.  Either both sentences use weasel words, or both are stated as fact, or the pair of sentences needs to go.  Thoughts? ELIMINATORJR 07:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole dinosaur-bird section needs to be rewritten a bit first. I don't know how the phrasing will fall out in the end, but aside from creationists, who obviously don't accept evolution, a small but dedicated cadre of ornithologists who apparently can't stand the idea of dinosaurs being related to birds and have never put up a suitable alternative but a revolving panel of "kinda bird-like poorly-known Triassic reptile that is definitely not a dinosaur" candidates, and the usual out-there fringies, maniraptoran birds are well-established. J. Spencer (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: I've used "non-avian dinosaur" a lot to exclude birds, but one thing bothers me. Is there any support for Paul's suggestion ("Predatory Dinosaurs of the World") that dromaeosaurs such as Velociraptor were secondarily flightless birds? If so, can we sort out the resulting terminological mess (since "dinosaur" in the popular sense would then be paraphyletic)? Or should the "definition" section just admit that our use of "dinosaur is paraphyletic? Philcha (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I thought it did state it (paraphyly of dinosaurs), but I see that although the idea is mentioned, the magic word "paraphyletic" is not. No one that I know of has found Paulian flightless dromaeosaurs lately, but since "dinosaur" as commonly understood is already paraphyletic, I guess it would just have to be even more paraphyletic. Either that, or the author(s) could propose a different definition of Aves to exclude dromaeosaurids. J. Spencer (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Logically you're right of course - "non-avian dinosaur" is by definition paraphyletic. But if there's support for Paul's secondarily flightless dromaeosaurs, that adds further scope for confusion. If so and there's a simple way to explain this, we should include it in Dinosaur; otherwise perhaps a little explanation might be helpful in article(s) about any groups that are regarded as secondarily flightless birds. Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even studies that find dromies to be secondarily flightless, as far as I know, have not found them to be avian. Avain does not = flight, after all (that's Avialae sensu Gauthier, not often used). A quick mention that "dinosaur" here excludes birds (Aves) should be enough for now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, thanks! Philcha (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Non-)avian dinos

message: The page was getting extremely long, and there was a distinct break between the November material and everything before it, so I cut everything before "Corrections urgently needed" (the most recent active discussion) and created Archive 7. J. Spencer (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I can't see any pattern in whether parts of Dinosaur link to other articles. For example the list of not-dinosaurs in "What is a dinosaur?", ornithodirans in "Origins and early evolution",  sauropods in "Evolution and paleobiogeography". I prefer to link a term when it first occurs in a section, though I realise that in some cases that will create long strings of links; but when in doubt I'd rather over-link than under-link. Philcha (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it'll be a lot easier to fix once the article restabilizes. J. Spencer (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to link a term when it first occurs in a section we have to be sure where the section breaks are. Should this go in a "To do" list at the top of this Talk page? Philcha (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to other articles

message: I don't know how J. Spencer is getting on with the heroic task of restructuring the article, but I'd like to make a few suggestions. IMO "Classification" is not the most interesting aspect to non-specialists, and its current position breaks up the narrative in the "Natural History" section; and it also partly functions as a "List of" section, which normally comes near the end of biology articles. There are also a few other topics that I think fit most comfortably under "Natural History". So I suggest:
* Natural history
** Origins and early evolution
** Evolution and paleobiogeography
** Size
** Behavior
** Soft tissue and DNA. Before "Physiology" because "Soft tissue and DNA" is likely to describe evidence that's relevant to "Physiology"; drop the "Controversies" heading because at present there's only 1 sub-section that's controversial, "Physiology" (unless people want to include the dino-bird link under "Controversies", but I'm not sure that's justified; and there's at least some debate about many topics in the article anyway.)
** Physiology. It might be good to move "Lungs", "Heart" and "Gizzard" from "Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds" to "Physiology" because these are also elements in the dino thermoregulation debate.
* Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds. Refer to "Lungs", "Heart" and "Gizzard" if these are moved to "Physiology". But retain "Sleeping posture" in "Feathered dinosaurs ...".
* Extinction
* Classification
* History of discovery. Include in this the 1st para of "Study of dinosaurs", possibly under "The "dinosaur renaissance", which lists other modern study techniques.
* Dinosaurs in culture
* Religious views Philcha (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like having the cast established early on, which is why I moved up the classification section; that's my reasoning. "Natural history" is a bit of a placeholder when I was struggling to find a better term, but I think such a section should be limited to topics with a time component, like origins, evolution, and distribution.  However, moving soft tissue/DNA and physiology into paleobiology is not a bad idea, and "controversies" is vague and potentially biased anyway. I also think that there may be too much on the dinosaur-bird stuff, and would like a theropod or bird person to have a look at that section and see if anything is redundant with Origin of birds and Feathered dinosaurs. J. Spencer (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and perhaps rename "Study of dinosaurs" to "Paleobiology." J. Spencer (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't all the subheadings that include "dinosaur" be renamed? Isn't that against the MoS? Sheep81 (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed all but one ("What is a dinosaur?") and decided to give an expanded "Paleobiology" a test drive. J. Spencer (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Distinguishing features" currently says, " ... early dinosaurs and other basal archosaurs are often poorly known and were similar in many ways." Should that be " ... early dinosaurs and other contemporary archosaurs ..."? "Basal archosaurs" makes me think of e.g. Protorosaurus. Philcha (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. J. Spencer (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we find a better word than "contemporaneous". I noted the "ugh" in J. Spencer's edit summary. I'd be happy with "other contemporary archosaurs" or "other archosaurs of that time". Philcha (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked your second suggestion more, but I added "Late Triassic" to clarify what "that time" was. J. Spencer (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple and sweet! Nothing personal :-) Philcha (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring - "Classification" and "Natural History"

message: cornwell and predator need disambig  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomblue (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. J. Spencer (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig