Talk:Tsintaosaurus

message: Wait... So, they discovered one dinosaur, thought it had a bizaare unicorn-type horn, then realized it was just a broken bone, and wasn't a new species after all. THEN, they discover a new dinosaur with the exact same thing, only real? Either this is a really weird case of serendipity, or I'm missing something. If there is a further 'something,' please add it in.Masternachos (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry was a bit confusing, I've tried to clarify it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: MUCH better, thank you. It is perfectly clear now!Masternachos (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: In this case, even recent restorations of this animal are "historical" now, so I think it would have encyclopaedic value to show how it was reconstructed until recently, it is just as interesting as showing how the plates on the back of Stegosaurus were restored in the past, the upright posture of Tyrannosaurus, etc. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! There needs to be a history section in the article to make sure it's in the proper context, though. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The crest section now goes very much into the historical interpretation, so I placed it there. I also added a new skull restoration, for contrast. We'll probably get a new life restoration at some point as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: New life restoration is awaiting approval for upload. 72.183.155.139 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, are you the artist? Then you should post the image at the dinosaur image review page: FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the artist. The image appears to still be in process. It was initially rejected due to copyright concerns. I sent a very long reply with proof of credentials, e-mail of my co-author, etc., and have never heard back from them. Frankly, I'm a scientist and one of the authors on the paper, and I have better things to do than mess with this. You might consider contacting the image review people.72.183.155.139 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be too complicated, may be easier if you make a Commons account and upload it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in joining another club, or remembering another password. I really do have better things to do than babysit a damned picture. If Wikipedia wants an accurate, up-to-date restoration of the animal, they can use the one I sent them (twice). I am sick of this bull****, and I don't intend to check this page again.72.183.155.139 (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure someone will make an image down the line, we have a pretty active paleoart department here where it could be requested. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia FINALLY got back to me. In a little while, I will try again to post the "official" reconstruction.Keep your toes crossed...72.183.155.139 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fine, the reconstruction is finally in here. It isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing. Enjoy! Gilbert Hamilton (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That's a very long caption, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? I spent a half-year trying to get that reconstruction onto this page, and it just gets replaced a couple months later? This is the last time I do anything for Wikipedia.72.183.155.139 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it didn't match the published skull reconstruction in proportions (perhaps since it was drawn many years prior to the study). As is usual on Wikipedia, once more accurate images become available, less accurate ones are replaced. Not sure what the problem is, we should strive for accuracy, no? Or do you disagree that the new image is more accurate? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical restoration 

message: We have a pre-2013 restoration labelled as outdated, and an image showing the modern interpretation of the crest, but no reconstruction incorporating it. I think this would be a nice thing to include. Does one we could use exist, or could we have one made? One is mentioned up-page here, but I guess nothing ever came of that, or it got stuck in review at some point. I'm curious if the article itself could use touching up - the section on the crest it great, but the rest is fairly brief and in the case of the tail end of the description section rather technical. I also question the source for the size estimates - is it reliable and up to date? Lusotitan (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I swear sometime recently I read a paper that disagreed with the new crest interpretation, unlesss I dreamt it. If that is the case that should probably be added to the article. I'd have to go hunting for the paper in question. Regarding size; in Greg Pauls 2010 feild guide he lists it as 8.3m and 2.5 tonnes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: This is the paper I was refering to, . It CT scans the crest and casts doubt that it represents its true morphology. I'm not sure I'm interpeting what the paper is saying correctly but the unicorn part is made from multiple fragments. Looking at the CT scans in the paper it looks to be filled with a lot of plaster, but they don't specifically state that. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having a really hard time interpreting what exactly they're trying to say about the crest. I mean, obviously they're saying it didn't look like the traditional reconstruction, but that's all I'm really understanding. Also yes, those size estimates sound far more reliable - do you know what page that information was on? Lusotitan (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Size estimates are in a book, 'The Prinston Feild Guide to Dinosaurs' (2010 edition) by Gregory S.Paul. (Edit, Oops I think you mean page number, p308)  Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's mention of the paper you mention here on the DML , where Williams says these results don't really contradict the recent re-interpretation. Thanks for the page number, I'll see if I can add that to the article. Can we use the DML as a valid source? Also, has the paper been validly published yet; i.e. is "Laiyangosaurus" still a nomen nudum? Lusotitan (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I would be up to looking at it eventually, hadrosaurs are my biggest interest, but right now I'm working on Nipponosaurus (I'm perhaps overly-optimistically curious if I can expand it enough to qualify for DYK status) and the articles for most members of the group could use work, so this one isn't necessarily a priority. Among them, I'm sure Corythosaurus and Hypacrosaurus could become FAs with some work. Lusotitan (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw you expanded Nipponosaurus, looks good! As long as an article covers all there is to know about the taxon, it doesn't matter if little is known about it, or if it is known from crappy material. See for example the FAs for Paranthodon and Dromaeosauroides. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration