Talk:Sinosauropteryx

message: An IP has been adding an argument against the filamentous structures being feathers, but is using a false premise that if filaments are present, the animals they are on must therefore be ancestral to birds.  No evidence is cited to establish this premise, and the paragraph is completely uncited.  Additionally, several of the examples cited did not have filaments, but something else (psittacosaurs and ichthyosaurs most notably).
"Further evidence that casts doubt upon the assertion that the filaments found on Sinosauropteryx are feathers is the fact that they have been found on fossils unrelated to birds,"
This evidence only casts doubt on the assertion if in fact filaments can only be present on on animals on the direct ancestral line to birds.  There is no evidence that this premise is true, and no evidence is brought to support the premise.
"like Dilong which is another basal, non - maniraptoran coelurosaur,"
See above.  This is a false premise. 
"Psittacosaurus,"
In the case of Psittacosaurus, these are long bristle or quill-like structures, unlike the filaments.
"some Pterosaurs"
The pterosaur example fails on the grounds that the integument in question is not necessarily the same as that present on Sinosauropteryx.
"and even Ichthyosaurs." 
This is a confused example.  The point of Lingham-Soliar's work was not that ichthyosaurs had filaments, but that "dinofuzz" was the same material as degraded collagen impressions found in ichthyosaurs.
"Moreover, genera related to Sinosauropteryx, like Coelurosaurus and Juravenator, were unfeathered."
There is no such dinosaur as "Coelurosaurus", and skin impressions are only known on part of the tail and legs of one individual of Juravenator.  It's asking a lot out of partial skin impressions one on individual to irrefutably show that filaments are not feathers on another dinosaur that lived tens of millions of years later on another continent. J. Spencer (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False premise argument 

message: I do NOT think that this is the earliest example of a dinosaur/avian like fossil species with feather imprints. 
What about:
Jinfengopteryx
Epidexipteryx
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Tianyulong
??
All of these were earlier, and yet they all were found with clear evidence of feathers or proto-feathers.
To be honest, when it comes to feathers, Sinosauropteryx came a few million years late and a dollar short. The feathers are slightly controversial, and they aren't impressive, thick, or advanced.  
To be honest, I have found this kind of claim a lot in wikipedian articles on fossil species.("This is the first example of X")
Anyway, I'm getting rid of that.
Of course, I could be wrong about something. Just reply to me if I am.
Cheers,
71.175.28.64 (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Earliest found of such fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eh, what?

message: Read this, Sinosauropteryx is the first dinosaur ever to have its true colour found!  Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SINOSAUROPTERX HAS COLOUR!!! 

message: Nominated april 24, 2010;
Support:
(sign with four tildes) ~
Comments:
This page isn't really used anymore, but just noticed how nice that article is, and that it could probably become either good or featured with a bit of work. Also, it's the first non-avian dinosaur with feathers and colour, so it's super important! It's also already longer than the Compsognathus article, which is featured. This would be the only featured article about a dinosaur with preserved feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The image can't be used here. Either the author has to release the right themselves, or you have to ask the author to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sinosauropteryx]] is the dinosaur collab for January 2011

message: Having gone through it three times, I think it's pretty well polished. There are two things that I think people may catch:
*The S. sp. stuff may be confusing. Hopefully, someone will publish something on it, and we can remove that stuff.
*I don't think the collagen fibre stuff is as well integrated as it could be. The problem is that all of the discussion and references regarding it in the article just kind of peter out (which might be a commentary on the ability of both us and paleontologists elsewhere to take it seriously, but I digress). We spend a lot of time talking about their characteristics as feathers and then, all of the sudden, it's "oh yeah, there are these guys that think the things are collagen fibres, but almost nobody believes them." I think there should be another citation about its lack of acceptance in the main controversy section. Also, the dangling nature of the sentence about it in the lede and the part about the controversy in the "History of discovery" take a lot of wind out of the end of the lede and the end of the article, respectively. They're just there, for lack of a better word. Maybe the "History of discovery" section should be moved up? Oddly, for all of its fame, I think that Sinosauropteryx has been really overlooked for the last decade, in favor of Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good - I think seeing how a fresh pair of non-paleontologist eyes at WP:GAN would be interesting. Sometimes we get stuck with connecting source material if we lack a secondary source which might have done that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. I feel that we haven't done enough for some reason, but we can always add more even when it's not the collab. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrap-up

message: Is it just me, or does it appear to have too long upper arms? FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, looked fine to me. Don't go by me, though, I'm more focused on dinner right now...Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Yeah, if what I think is the elbow is actually it, the upper arms are way too long. As you can see here  the humerus is shorter than the ulna in adult specimens and about equal in the juvenile (but musculature etc. would make it appear even shorter). The arms are too long overall as well, minus the hand they should be only about %60 femur length. Perspective aside, here, they look about %100 femur length. Basically, Sino had tiny tyrannosaur-like arms, which is a pretty distinctive feature to get wrong in an FA illustration. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it's based on S.? sp. There's a skeletal of it in GSP's field guide, and it looks to have had noticeably longer humeri than S. prima, at least. J. Spencer (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, those proportions do look closer to NT's resto. Could always change the label (though it would be a bit odd if S. sp. had the exact same coloration as S. prima. And it seems to be lacking the Dilong-like tail tuft seen in the fossil and mentioned by GSP. MMartyniuk (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a picture og Zhangotherium in instead, there's already a picture of a cast of the ?sp. specimen, so having more images of it would maybe be overrepresentation. It can always be used when and if the specimen gets its own genus... FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobu Tamura restoration 

message: Good news: it's CC 4.0 - we can use the images!  Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, currently looking at it... Will upload some stuff soon. But so far, it seems our current photo of the holotype is at least superior, but the other specimen is nice to get a photo for too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded already. They are here:  Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I've now added images to where they might fit, but there are of course more that could be added with a little expansion of the article... Also, 's old restoration differs form the new one in some respects, so I wonder whether it should be replaced here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose a formally peer-reviewed restoration is more credible... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, I'm not a fan of the gigantic eye which would exceed the diameter of the inner side of the sclerotic ring, that Psittacosaurus model had the same problem... FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely go with the one from the paper. Mine needs updating. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Oh, I can merge them in that case... Remember to take them from the PDF, the ones on the web version are tiny... FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, maybe someone wants to take a look at this deletion request: FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper