Talk:Monolophosaurus

message: On a recent change of the taxobox image, the edit was quickly undone. The reason for this was that the image was awful. I am suggesting this image on the fact that it portrays Monolophosaurus better. Although it can be argued that this suggested image has pronated hands, and is therefore inaccurate. However, the current taxobox image also has at least one pronated hand. Now, this new suggested image shows Monolophosaurus as an active individual, hunting a Tujiangosaurus, not just idly walking in place like in the current image. Also, there is nothing bad about the mount depicted in the new image, and this mount is also reliable. In this new image, the photo is of a mount at the Paleozoological Museum of China, which is the resident display space of the IVPP, one of the leading paleontological institutions of the world. The current image is of a cast mount in Japan, and there is no information on how reliable the mount really is. BleachedRice (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Both mounts are inaccurate in having pronated hands. But we should always use the pictures that show the subject of the article clearest. And I think it's pretty obvious which picture that is. I can hardly even make out what is what in the proposed new image, and the defining feature of this animal, the crest, is obscured by foreshortening. Showing behaviour is much less important for the lead image, which is supposed to simply show how the subject looks (and we already have a better image of "behaviour" with the Bellusaurus). As for reliability, there is only one specimen known, so all such casts are based on that, and equally reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there's anything wrong with dinosaurs walking calmly along, I'm sure they did this a lot in real life. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox Image 

message: Well, we have a photo of the holotype specimen on Wikimedia Commons now. I think the best place for it would be the Discovery section, and maybe a new Paleoecology section could be made so that the current image we have in the Discovery section can make way for the holotype specimen. It's very important to add this holotype image in the right place because this is actually the specimen after it was reconstructed and prepared for exhibition. And we know that the left side was encased in foam, which corresponds with this photo. So, where should we put the image? BleachedRice (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that photo? But yeah, if we have one and it's free, it should definitely be used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holotype Specimen 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monolophosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010631/http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinom.htm to http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinom.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see no reason why the paper  should be cited as Zhao & Currie (1994) rather than Zhao & Currie (1993). According to the paper itself, it was published in 1993. However, both options are found in the literature. Olshevsky, in his online list of non-avian dinosaur genera, offers the following quote, without giving reasons: "P. Currie & Zhao X., 1994 (not 1993)". If this quote is unfounded, should something be changed in the 1993 in paleontology and 1994 in paleontology articles that refer to Olshevsky's list? HFoxii (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes one date was printed on a specific paper, but the issue it belonged to wasn't published until later. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: It would seem that the 1994 date is one of those self-perpetuating ouroboroi with no basis. GeoScienceWorld likewise indicates that volume 30 was published entirely in 1993. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description date