Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 7

message: At the moment i have been looking at these pages WRT issues such as arguments about bipedal posture, neck elevation and other issues. It is tricky sometimes to figure where to put something. eg. studies on both bipedal posture, neck elevation were done across the sauropod genera hence my raionale for them going on sauropod page, but question is if something well known is a 'leader' type article then how much reduplication of info on the species page? Some stuff of Stegosaurus would be probably better placed on Stegosauria page maybe. Similar issues on Allosaurus/Allosauridae/Carnosaur/Tetanurae/Theropod.....Cas Liber 07:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what should go on what page - Sauropod/Diplodocidae/Diplodocus  

message: OK - got a page up on Dong Zhiming. Now all the dinosaurs he named........Cas Liber 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great way to do it, I think: create the paleontologist article, then add the dinosaurs he or she has named. Also: cool category. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dong Zhiming 

message: I checked with some of my paleo friends and they confirmed that the photos we're using there are in fact Bambiraptor. Check it out: . Even the same pose. D'oh. I'm gonna solicit around for some new images.Dinoguy2 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sucks. Thanks for the research, though.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah - thanks for that - I'm going to have to do some serious researching at this end, to see how I could have made that error. Sorry to have confused everyone. - Ballista 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh Ballista, you really let down the team man! I'm saddened by your lack of enthusiasm & effort.... ;) (I'm just kidding of course... However, the pictures will look great on the Bambiraptor page!) Have a good one & don't be down on yourself... Spawn Man 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Look here - thanks for this word of encouragement - was a bit of a blow - as you say, we've expanded our repertoire, thereby. I'm in the process of uploading some NEW images but will also rename the Bambiraptor ones, so that they have the correct image name! - May not have time for all this today, however .... Just jammed my computer and had to reboot, as trying to upload too many at once (to save time - not)! - - Ballista 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno... The pics are very dark &/or out of focus & definitely not as good as the ones you removed from the article. The only way I could see them going into the article is if Firsfron of Glouchester fixed them up somehow with his special computer photo fixer thingy... Nice effort, but they need big work on them... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I think Firsfron of Manchester should focus his efforts on Image:Velociraptor feeding Animatronics models NHM.JPG, as it is a good shot if it wasn't so dark. It could even be a good lead photo...? Spawn Man 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing, of course. But I will wait for Ballista's go-ahead. Maybe he has an alternate plan. Or maybe he'd like to try working on these himself. BTW, these are really neat models! And, again, I'm pretty jealous: Ballista seems to be within close range of some great museums!--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned on the Velociraptor talk, Scott hartman will be donating a better skeletal and photos of Velociraptor fossils in a week or two, so we should have more than enough images.Dinoguy2 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been so busy in 'real life' lately that I've not followed this thread. Thanks for feedback. However, here's the deal on the original cock-up. I revisited the museum y'day, to sort it. The exhibit in the OUMNH is labelled Velociraptor feinbergi. I swallowed this just fine, as Velociraptor, as my first visit was before I knew there was now only the one recognised V. species (knowledge subsequently picked up during my work on WP). I never looked at the tiny label, on subsequent visits. I humbly apologise to the Project for this oversight and inaccuracy. It has taught me a big lesson. However, another possible anomaly now creeps in. I want to sort it 100%, before relabelling my images. Help please. Our WP Bambiraptor article states Bambiraptor feinbergi; OUMNH website states B. feinbergum (on page 8). DinoData has B. feinbergorum. Question 1: Which is correct? I don't want to be responsible for perpetuating any further muddles! Question 2: Should we make a note about the renaming of V/B. feinbergi, in the Velociraptor article? Question 3: Do we need to make a note about the variations in spelling of the 'specific' name, in the Bambiraptor article? Thanks to the Project for picking up my error so quickly and thanks for the gracious way it has been handled. I'll rename the images, just as soon as I can after the above clarifications. - Ballista 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.: The tiny exhibit label makes no mention of Bambiraptor, despite the info on the website. I've asked them to sort this and shall let you know their response, as soon as I receive it (they're going to e-mail me). - Ballista 05:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. "Bambiraptor feinbergi" gets 2,070 hits on google; "Bambiraptor feinbergum" only 6, including the OUM site. That indicates to me it's either a misspelling or a less-common variant. "Bambiraptor feinbergorum" gets 368 hits. The matter may be more complex than this, but I suggest going with what appears to be the most common spelling variant. And don't sweat it. Photos can easily be re-uploaded, as you found out the other day after my misspelling. :) 2. A note should be made, I think. 3. No idea. 4. I don't think anyone's been "gracious": it clearly wasn't your fault, and even the museum's allowed some mistakes: it's not like they labled it Diplodocus or something. Probably when it was first labled, as you say, it was still thought to be Velociraptor, and the re-naming was overlooked. Probably happens a lot; this is the only time one of us caught it (and kudos to Dinoguy and his paleo friends for spotting it). I once caught an author's name misspelled on a printed sign that went out to over 1,000 bookstores. OK, not quite related, but maybe you get my point: one sign isn't a big deal in the big scheme of things. 5. Cool, about contacting the museum about the renaming. I bet they'll be surprised! Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bambiraptor feinbergorum is the correct scientific name and by no means could it be confused with Velociraptor, to answer two of your questions. To answer your third, it was originally called B. feinbergi but was quickly changed to B. feinbergorum to satisfy Latin grammar requirements as it is named in honor of more than one Feinberg. Does that help? Also I have just seen in print another picture of the specimen in exactly the same pose so I guess that would confirm the ID as Bambiraptor, not that it necessarily needed to be confirmed at this point.Sheep81 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for these responses. Sorry, for some reason I've only just seen them!. This page is on my watchlist, so I don't know how I missed them thus far. I came here looking, only because it is unheard of for this group not to answer a plea for help promptly. I'll relabel image stuff now. Are we going to update the specific name in the Bambiraptor article, too?- Ballista 11:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I've now reloaded all used pics as 'Bambiraptor' and tagged all the wrongly-named ones as wrongly named! However, some had already been transferred over to Commons (by Dudo), as Bambiraptor, so they had to have a new name.- Ballista 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding b. feinbergi vs B. feinbergorum -- the later is the correct formation, but the former was named first. Unless there was a special amendment by the ICZN the former name is officially correct. Not sure if there actually has been such an amendment, but if there has been, it should be discussed and cited in the article, and the format of the authorship (parenthesis and what have you) should be changed accordingly. . The rules for emendation of mis-formed names only applies to things named and emended in 2000. B. was named and "emended" in 2000, so the emendation cannot stick.Dinoguy2 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad news for ''[[Velociraptor]]'' 

message: Hi everyone. Although it ain't a biggy, could I please remind everyone to come & vote at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration??? Most nominations are thrown away due to lack of votes & really, only 6 people actually vote! Not very exciting or cometitive! So, just come along & vote for your favourite dinosaur or check out what the collaboration is & see if you can help. Thnaks, Spawn Man 00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to it :)Cas Liber 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urge to vote!! Your country needs you!! 

message: Now that Category:Carnivorous dinosaurs has been deleted, should the same happen to :Category:Herbivorous dinosaurs? Ziggurat 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so. It only contains one entry anyway.Dinoguy2 01:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2, 1, 0... I'll go nominate it! Ziggurat 01:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'll go help vote it off the island.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbie 

message: Sorry if this is the wrong place, but Biological issues in Jurassic Park needs help. It has no references or sources, Potentially bad science and original research.
I'm pretty new at this and don't really know what to do, just thought you could help_Dragon Helm 13:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First things first.... Try looking at your screen upside down, it makes things a little bit better when dealing with subtle issues such as this. Next ask yourself, do I want to; A) Go to sleep (only if it is 12:56 am)! B) Try to avoid herpes if you are contributing from an island in the South West of Bermuda, or C) Phone a friend? If you answered nay to one or more of the questions then it is fair to say you are normal... Answering your question will take some thought. Ask a Wikiproject such as Wikiproject dinosaurs, what they think & wait for an answer. Then one of the users there will obviously tell you that someone will clean up the article or delete it, thus taking the sensitive matters out of your hand for a small fee ($200 dimaris + GST). Have a good cleansing & go the HORNETS! Yeah! Spawn Man 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: Ohmigoshbatman! Our work efforts into the selected article collaboration has dwindled slowly. Velociraptor had good amounts of work on it, same with T rex. But honestly, work on Diplodocus is shameful! C'mon guys, boost up the tempo for the final days of this article's nomination! I expect to see another article either featured or in peer review (although peer review sucks!) before the next collaboration is chosen! Gosh, what ever you guys are doing, hugging trees (cause you all seem so mellow bout everything) or digging up fossils, you guys need a push into activity! *Sigh*.... Spawn Man 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeaaaaah man. - Ballista 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course. I've done a bit of a copy overhaul - hope it's OK. No offence if folk want to revert stuff. As it was rather a long and drawn-out affair, it clashed with Cas's edit. Cas, please check I've incorporated your addition OK. - Ballista 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, er, I think so...I was making so many at work today while running in and out I forgot what I was doing........Cas Liber 10:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C'mon guys get fire wise! 

message: Hello!  I run Thescelosaurus!, and since there are some links to my pages scattered across the dinosaurs (anything with personal2.stthomas.edu/jstweet in its name, for example), I thought I'd let you know that I'm moving to http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1.  I'll fix those that I find when I get a chance.  The pages will all be the same, as far as I know, and I'm hoping that I don't move again in the near future. J. Spencer 19:40 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:That's great. :) Thanks for the updated links. I'll double-check later with AWB to make sure all the links are updated. --Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., I think I got them all.--J. Spencer 23:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 00:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website moved 

message: Has anyone been there or taken photos. Got a couple books by Dong Zhiming from the library, Man this place looks great - love to go there. Worht putting a requested photo bit on Wikipriject China? (will have a look) Cas Liber 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea, Cas. At least, it can't hurt. Last I heard, Wikipedia was banned in mainland China, but there may be people with connections who have photos from the museum. Cool idea. --Firsfron of Ronchester 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: banned???????? Yik! I left a note anyways and will keep me fingers crossedCas Liber 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, since October of 2005 Wikipedia is not allowed in mainland China, although Taiwan is of course still free. China's National Security division felt Wikipedia was a possible threat. The site was briefly allowed again, but it was banned again in February of this year, and I don't think it's been allowed back since. Still, there may be people who visited the museum, so I'll keep my finger crossed, too. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've visited the mueseum when I crossed China by car. Very exciting.... Spawn Man 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Man, I'm like  so jealous Cas Liber 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great idea of yours, Cas - I had toyed yesterday with the idea of creating a dedicated page for the museum (as oposed to it being under the town name) but I realised I wasn't well-enough informed to do so - how about it? - Ballista 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I don't know much except I just borrowed two of Dong Zhimin's books from the library. Will mull over itCas Liber 08:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I may have some photos, but I need everyone's effort into getting T rex featured.... Spawn Man 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Once the T rex thing is settled love to see the pix online. Sopmething really goos and special to stick online Cas Liber 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yippee - got this on DYK too todayCas Liber 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My family is from Zigong and I've got a ton of photos of the Museum. Talk to me. Phreakster 1998 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Started the Zigong Dinosaur Museum You help would be greatly appreciated in fleshing it out. I still have a ton of photos to sort through.  Any Dinosaurs in particular that need photos? Phreakster 1998 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the chinese dinosaurs I think - Shunosaurus and...I'll haev a look Cas Liber 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zigong]] Museum 

message: If I don't make a move, we'll never get anywhere. So, I've nominated the article for Featured article status! Yay! References are needed in a small quantity, but the article may get away with it. Maybe a bit of work on the opening? Sheep, you need to work in any stuff you've worked on in your sand box & together, it'll be featured! It'll add another knotch to my belt & get T rex & wikiproject dinos on 0.5 & the main page again. Vote here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrannosaurus. And I don't want any, "I worked on the article therefore I must abstain" stuff either. We're either in this together or it fails... Spawn Man 02:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some of the stuff from my sandbox, as requested. I had intended to consult with the Project before altering the article in such a dramatic way but the FAC increased the urgency so I just went ahead and changed it. Please, feel free to make any changes you want, even revert entire sections if you want. I really didn't mean to take over the article but I didn't think we had a lot of time to deliberate on the changes because of the nomination. Even so, I think if you read through the Characteristics section in particular, you will find that a pretty good chunk of the language is near-identical to the original version, in case anyone is concerned about me rewriting stuff. I took out the part about the brain and will add it to the paleobiology section (same with the bite force stuff from the lead). Also, the refs to Dino-Cards and such were good in a pinch, but primary sources are better, so I've added those. I'd agree with Firsfrom to leave refs to websites in unless they are just really bad, and of course URLs of newspaper articles should stay. I hope this is OK with everyone. I want T. rex featured as much as anyone else. Sheep81 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tyrannosaurus]] rex is gonna be King! 

message: ...Is on the main page, in the DYK section. Pretty cool, eh? :) I've asked that italics are added to the name.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't sure about the italics and bold together but nominated a few things last night when I couldn't sleep. Cas Liber 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Lufengosaurus]]''

message: Wow I'm late to get involved with this. Anyway, I've observed that many of the dinosaurs covered here don't have their estimated live sizes or weights listed in the articles. Also, while the general dates of the dinos are given (Late Jurassic, Late Cretaceous, etc.), it rarely goes as specific as say, "Maastrichtian." I was wondering if these omissions were done on purpose, or whether I should add information like this. Abyssal leviathin 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add anything you can find an actual reference to support. For example, weights and sizes have not been estimated for most dinosaurs (by scientists anyway; many websites tend to just make stuff up that sounds good).Sheep81 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty. Do you guys consider DinoRuss's site to be a sufficiently credible source of size/weight/date information?Abyssal leviathin 04:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, Abyssal. DinoRuss is an actual geologist with the Illinois State Geological Survey. He's a member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, and has published many papers, mostly on deposits and rock formations, but a few on dinosaurs in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology . I'd call his work reliable, but of course there are also experts in other fields (biologists, locomotion experts, etc).--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, great if you can add stuff - also feel free to participate (and vote in) collaborations. Things like size are good in body of text are they are so often hypothesized and require explanation. Cas Liber 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great to have more editors on board, with a different slant on things - go for it! Otherwise we're a bit in danger of being self-pollinated :-) - Ballista 06:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-pollinated? Eww. ;) --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You think self-pollination is gross? You should've seen the time my ferns turned tribal on me! Now that was excruciating! Spawn Man 06:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sizes? Dates?

message: Oh my God! T. rex is now a featured article!!! Yay! That's 2 featured articles for me & the project in the last month! However, I cannot accept all the praise just cause I nominated & did some work on it: Firsfron, You did some amasing referencing & copyediting work, well done. Sheepy, Ditto & your new professional refs really gave us some legitimacy. Cas & Bastilla, Great copy editing & work on the article. I don't know if anyone else worked on it, other than Samsara, but if I've forgotten you guys, I'm sorry. Well done team, I'll try to get the King on the main page within a couple of weeks. It will really boost numbers now. Thanks a bunch for all you guys have done! Spawn Man 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has to be said there was some great 'wrangling' by some of you guys, on the way in, with all those points of criticism that were raised by various editors. This one was definitely 'nursed' home. From the outset, I was sure we'd get this one home but there were more labour pains than I'd expected. Well done indeed, esp. to those on the 'front line'! - Ballista 04:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not think it would be a suitable candidate as of yet. There are many more articles closer to FA standard than Diplodocus. In fact, I don't think it really deserved the good article standard. We don't have to featured every single collaboration we do as we still have 2 dino articles that Firsfron & Sheepy haven't requested go on the main page (Alberta & Pssita). Go & request them guys! Spawn Man 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just requested them both. Sorry I could not put more time into the T. rex article, work is just killing me this summer. Well I should be back to normal in a week or two (hopefully in time for the next Collaboration). Sheep81 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's understandable. I've been busy with other stuff, too. But now I feel I can finally get back to editing. Nice fixes on T. rex BTW.--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tyrannosaurus]] rex is now King!