Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Untitled

Folks - Please sign your messages with ~~~~. Please also try to add appropriate section headings if you are beginning a new topic of discussion. Please add new discussion to the bottom of the page. - UtherSRG 12:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A clean slate

The old talk page was getting a bit long so I have archived it. See above for anything you want to review. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

the lead section

Per the Wiki guide to layout, the part of the article before the first section heading should be introductory. It seems to me that in this article the 1st paragraph is a good introduction, but the long 2nd and 3rd paragraphs get into non-introductory material. The length of these paragraphs also has the effect of pushing the TOC pretty far down on the page. I thought that adding a section heading "The dinosaur record" after the 1st paragraph would be a good solution. This heading title pretty much fits the content of paragraphs 2 & 3, though perhaps not perfectly. Comments? KarlBunker 13:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is too long, and contains non-introductory material, but the heading "Dinosaur record" wasn't appropriate to the content of the section. The introduction needs to be re-written, with some parts move to other sections. John.Conway 15:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and that's what I've done. Moved parts of the old lead section into other sections, and made the new lead section into 3 short paragraphs. KarlBunker 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job. 24.63.83.203 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. - John.Conway 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fossil range

The fossil range in the box is useful to the reader when it reads "Triassic - Cretaceous". If it is amended to read "Carnian - Maastrichtian", it serves to trumpet how very knowledgable we all are, but it's no longer very useful to the reader. Let's keep an eye out for pretentious showing-off and try to keep it to a minimum. --Wetman 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The taxoboxes shouldn't be overloaded with detail. In the text the more precise range can be given but I think it best to give it in million years ago with "Carnian to Maastrichtian" in brackets if at all. Jimp 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What did dinosaurs look like?

Reading through the first part of the article, it occurs to me that we don't directly address what dinosaurs LOOKED like. The question is addressed tangentially in pictures and via the various discussions of size, feathers and so forth.

The article used to say that dinosaurs had physical characteristics ranging from those of reptiles to those of birds. While certainly an oversimplification, I thought that this was a useful way to "bound" the visible appearance problem. Perhaps that statement could be the jumping-off point for a short paragraph early in the article? - Killdevil 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reptile to avian-like in appearance

Ok, no offense, but what does this even mean? Which reptile do they looks like? Snakes, turtles, aligators, tuatara, or what? Which dinosaurs are bird-like and which are reptile-like? Which do hadrosaurs look like? Amkylosaurs? This phrase is very subjective, depends on an inidividuals mental concepts of "bird" and "reptile", and I'm not sure it's useful, when dinosaurs cover such a vast array of appearances.Dinoguy2 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only is "Reptile to avian-like in appearance' not very meaningful, it's unnecessary. Pretty much everyone has a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like, so there's no need to try to put it into words. I've removed that phrase. KarlBunker 14:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The original phrase was "crocadile-like to bird-like" encompassed the nearest living nondinosaur relatives and the actual living dinosaurs we also call birds. Dinosaurs are like every type of bird because every type of bird is a dinosaur. The dinos-crocs split in the ancient past is a matter of definition, so ancient dinos and ancient crocs were indistinguishable at the moment definition seperates the two lines. (there wasn't a defined intermediary group was there?) WAS 4.250 22:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article star

How did the featured article star get put up next to the article's title in the upper right-hand corner of the page? A developer? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just adding the "{{featured article}}" tag to the text appears to do that. KarlBunker 17:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording of creationist links

I realize the creationist links are the outcome of delicately-negotiated compromise, so I'm a bit leery of reopening the debate. However, I think the wording is a bit weak. It currently states:

Various religious groups have views about dinosaurs that differ from those that are generally accepted as fact by scientists. While many mainstream scientists respect these views as faith positions, they argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny.

In particular, I think we can safely say that all mainstream scientists believe that "religiously-inspired interpretations" don't withstand serious scientific scrutiny. (I should say I'm assuming" religiously-inspired interpretations" to mean creationism of one form or another; please let me know if that's not the case.)

I propose the following substitution for the last sentence:

While mainstream scientists argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny, many respect these views as faith positions.

I welcome any comments on this wording. --Saforrest 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would go a little further and say that whether or not "many" scientists "respect" faith-based positions is vague, unsupported, and irrelevant. It reads like an attempt to appease any creationist folks who happen to stop by: "Yes sweetie, we all respect your opinion, but this article is for grownups; why don't you go play in one of these articles like a good girl/boy?" I wouldn't particularly object to that tactic if I thought it would work, but I doubt it does. So for the last sentence I would propose something like:

Mainstream scientists argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs are faith-based, and do not withstand scientific scrutiny. KarlBunker 12:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to tweaking the wording per Saforrest's suggestion. I think Karl Bunker's proposed changes amount to a tautology, though. Religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs are faith-based by their very definition, so there's no need to restate that.

I'll go ahead and change the para to Saforrest's proposed wording and see what happens. Killdevil 22:37, 9 March

2006 (UTC)

And let's stop always placing evolutionary bias on articles that relate to dinosaurs. Dinosaurs do not rely on evolution and mega-annums to exist; they can exist just as well in the creationist view. I don't want to start a big debate on evolution, but I want Wikipedia to stop displaying this bias as "facts". It's still only theoretical and if you think that 100% of scientists who study dinosaurs think that mega-annums are true you should start reading more. Besides, even if that were the case it wouldn't change anything. If all astronomers believed that the earth is flat, would that make it true? No, and neither does the "fact" that all paleontological scientists believe in mega-annums of Earth's history make that true. Scorpionman 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. DO NOT START DEBATING THE VALIDITY OF MEGA-ANNUMS OR EVOLUTION HERE. I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST THEM HERE; I AM TRYING TO CHANGE WIKIPEDIA'S HABIT OF ALWAYS DISPLAYING MEGA-ANNUMS BIAS. Scorpionman 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried taking mega-annums for a while, but they made my pee orange. KarlBunker 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Scorpionman, I think the article is scientifically informed but pretty balanced, and I'd definitely encourage you to check out, and contribute to, the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article that was created expressly to cover faith-oriented viewpoints. Killdevil 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The bias which Wikipedia has is a fact-based bias. Scorpionman, I'm afraid you've got things the wrong way around. It's the fact that there have been "mega-annums of Earth's history" (giga-annums actually) which make palæontological scientists believe it's true. Why can we call this a "fact"? Scorpionman, you make a very common mistake when you write "still only theoretical" (emphasis added). In science the word theory has some very specific implications. For something to be a valid scientific theory it must be supported by evidence. The theory of evolution by natural selection is such a theory. The evidence is overwhelmingly strong hence we can call it a fact just as we can call it a fact that the Earth is about four or five odd milliard years old and not a mere six thousand. But, no, let's not start a debate about the validity of these theories. Good luck in your quest to change Wikipedia's habit of alway displaying a fact-based as opposed to a faith-based bias. Jimp 01:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why there is a "religious views" section included in this article. The rest of the article is well written and very informative, while this adds no further substance to the dinosaur topic. Furthermore, the "Creationism", "Old Earth creationism", "Young Earth creationism", "Religion and science" articles linked from this section have no information about dinosaurs on them. It furthers the argument of removing this section, as it only serves as a promotion for those groups. I suggest removing this section entirely, and adding the "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs" to the see also area.Kilgore Sprout 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the section serves a purpose. Although I spoke disparagingly of appeasing creationists above, I think that some appeasement of them is worthwhile. This section gives the creationists who come here a place to go, thereby (hopefully) lessening the chances they'll feel compelled to add their junk to this article. It appears to be working; There haven't been many instances of attempted creationist edits here over the past several months. KarlBunker 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't really want to "appease" creationists, but rather work out the best way making this article NPOV: that is, ensuring that we don't take sides in disputed matters, yet also that we don't give undue prominence to fringe beliefs. There's a minority -- but not a totally insignificant minority -- of believers in Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) who advocate young Earth creationism (YEC), and have views at odds with mainstream science. I think a "Religious views on dinosaurs" section is overblown and somewhat awkward as a solution, as the views are limited to the YEC position, or else to agree with mainstream science. Accordingly, my original proposal was to add a paragraph along these lines to the "in popular culture" section:

"Advocates of young Earth creationism in Abrahamic religions dispute the mainstream scientific understanding of dinosaurs. Based on the belief that the Earth is only some 6,000 to 10,000 years old, they argue that the scientific dating of dinosaur fossils is flawed, that the fossil record dates from the Great Flood of Noah, and that humans and dinosaurs must have at one time coexisted. Some contend that dinosaurs were present on board Noah's Ark, but became extinct after the Flood[1]. Virtually no life scientists support these views on dinosaurs[2], and most religions do not see any incompatability between their faith and dinosaur science."

— Matt Crypto 09:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we do want to appease creationists, if it helps to reduce vandalism and edit wars, and doesn't significantly harm the intelligence of the article. However, personally I can live with your edit. I've made some minor changes to it. KarlBunker 11:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your changes look OK to me. I strongly believe we shouldn't include or exclude anything in the article just to "appease" some or other faction; that way unending flamewars lie. Any argument for inclusion has to stand on its own merits with respect to policy, which I believe this paragraph does. Without such a paragraph, the article would fall short of being complete and NPOV. — Matt Crypto 11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain Matt how a minority can be included in the"popular culture" section. besides, your paragraph on the single religious viewpoint of the YEC is far more overblown than the whole "religious views" section was. a whimsical tale such as noah's ark is laughable at best to be included hereKilgore Sprout 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

By NPOV policy, Wikipedia describes minority viewpoints. We typically treat them in proportion to how significant they are. Three sentences on YEC views in a long article is not disproportionate, particularly when we discuss dinosaurs in comic books and computer games etc. — Matt Crypto 11:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

comic books and computer games are forms of popular media and entertainment throughout the world. the viewpoints of the YEC are not. my question remains, why include this in the "popular culture" section?

I don't suppose everyone in the world plays Zoo Tycoon either, but we mention it. Good article structure avoids main sections containing only a single paragraph. — Matt Crypto 11:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a sub-heading of an existing section for religious views? To be fair, we should cover Christian views, Hundu views, Amerindian views, Scientologist views, etc. Each of these could warrent at least a line in the sub-section.Dinoguy2 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, a majority of religious people are happy with the scientific account. We can deal with those by using some catchall like "other religions do not see any incompatability between their faith and dinosaur science". There's not much point having thirty different religion sections all saying the same thing. — Matt Crypto 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cenozoic Dinosaur contradiction in endnote

This article says in the "Cenozoic Dinosaurs" section that a fossil found in El Ojo, South America, is possibly from the Cenezoic. However, the endnote states:

^ Fassett, J, R.A. Zielinski, & J.R. Budahn. (2002). Dinosaurs that did not die; evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone, San Juan Basin, New Mexico.

Is it New Mexico or South America? Probably isn't both.--Firsfron 06:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's just two places (both with fossils) with the same name. "El Ojo" means "cottonwood tree" in Spanish. KarlBunker 12:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious views

We need to discuss religious views in this article, and not in a subarticle. A Wikipedia article should examine and discuss all aspects of a topic. — Matt Crypto 14:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia article should be aimed at maximum usability. Most people who go to "Dinosaur" want reliable, mainstream information. The small sub-section who are interested in what a few religious groups think about dinosaurs are perfectly able to find the appropriate article on it. What's the problem with that? As WP:NPOV outlines, a Wikipedia article should first cover the primary POV (in its relevant domain), and then only allot as much time is appropriate for secondary or fringe POVs, or delegate them to separate articles if they are going to be discussed in any length inappropriate for the main article. Our page on Project Apollo does not go into detail about the conspiracy theories surrounding it, and instead shuttles that discussion off to another article. I don't think anybody is disputing that the Creationist view of dinosaurs is not the mainstream view of them (the only place one would expect a discussion of them in Creationist terms would be on Creationist websites, which I think is a good indication of the "fringe" status of that POV). --Fastfission 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with Fastfission. Matt Crypto, we had nearly the same debate months back, and your argument was much the same back then. I thought the compromise solution, in which we note that other dino viewpoints exist and point to articles covering those views, was a good one. Let's leave the "Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs" paragraph alone. Killdevil 19:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm in agreement with leaving it as it is. KarlBunker 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree too. Let's leave it the way it is. –Shoaler (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree too. Let's leave it the way it is. –WAS 4.250 00:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Although you agree with Fastfission, Killdevil, you don't understand his argument. I just took the time to view the Project Apollo page, and found conspiracy theories as a link in the "see also" section. Unknowingly, I had tried the same thing a few days ago here removing the paragraph, and putting "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs" as a link in the "see also". People who want to learn about creationist views on dinosaurs can search and find the relevant articles if they want. As for the argument of it only being 3 sentences long, it is also 1 of the 7 (not including the external links and references) main sections in this article. That seems a little disproportionate compared with the mainstream discussion. Like I have said before, the articles linked from the religious section (excluding "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs") contain no information about dinosaurs. Why are they there? The subtle wording of "... and further context" doesn't not give them rights to be there. I have guessed this has been issue for argument many times before, but I wasn't here then. Browsing Wiki last week for info on my county's pre-historic reltpile, the tuatara, it was a shock to see "Religious Views" appearing on popular topics that discuss the world over 10,000 years ago. The creationists are not using these topics to discuss their POV, but to promote their beliefs. There are no "religious views" sections appering in lesser world history topics. Sorry for the off-topic rant, but you didn't make a compromise with this. You let the smallest fraction of the world's population (i'm guessing situated in a few US states) post their religious views here on a topic as globally accepted as dinosaurs. Oh, I'm editing the article to include "Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs" in the "see also" section. That is a real compromise.Kilgore Sprout 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kilgore, you really need to read some of the archived discussions attached to this talk page. This has been discussed here literally to death over many months, and I and others are convinced of the need to have SOME small mention of religious perspectives in the main article, as long as we don't go into specifics (specifics should be in the Religious Perspectives fork). Why a religious perspectives section for dinosaurs in particular? Well, dinosaurs are one of the most well-known extinct groups of animals. As such, various religious groups have had to address them specifically (because the mainstream scientific explanation constitutes a direct challenge to their beliefs). And creationist viewpoints are significant -- over 50% of the American public have creationist views, for example. Killdevil 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Killdevil. Likewise, you really need to read into the arguments of people more closely (see above). You and others were convinced (i read compromised) the need to have a small section? I and others are convinced it shouldn't be included here. Again, why the need for links to creationist articles with no mention of dinosaurs? As dinosaurs are well known and a largely researched extinct group, it furthers the need to remove the belief section with the great amount information we have available to us. This is not a fringe topic, so why are the fringe views included? I'd like to see the poll of more than 50% of the USA public agreeing that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. T-rex hamburger, anyone? Kilgore Sprout 11:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to see the poll that more than 50% of the USA public have heard of Zoo Tycoon... — Matt Crypto 12:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a consensus against my paragraph, so I guess I'll have to drop it. I do believe the article is poorer for it: YEC creationists are well-known (i.e. infamous), and are not numerically insignificant either. Given that we go into great detail about dinosaurs in comic books and computer games and other fairly trivial aspects of pop culture, it seems odd that we do not mention any specifics here. — Matt Crypto 11:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the YEC are not as well-known as you think. I understand creationists are very vocal in the USA and well documented in the media there, but do you believe the YEC are as easily recognised anywhere else in the world? As for attacking Zoo Tycoon, everybody knows about the existence of computer games. Zoo Tycoon is just one of many examples of computer games to include dinosaurs. Comic books, TV, and film trivial? I guess in a world where the YEC are infamous they are. This topic needs to be discussed in another article and I've included the link to that. The only purpose "Religious views" serve here are to help defend the dates of creationism. It does not add any further relevant information to the dinosaur article.

Kilgore, regardless of how many YEC'ers there are, or how well they're known, the fact of the matter is that "religious views" and creationism has been a contentious issue here in this article. The current religious views section was arrived a after a lot of debate, and it seems to have succeeded in quieting the debate and the creationist edit wars. The consensus is to keep it. Simply deleting it with no justification stronger than (basically) "I don't like it" isn't very reasonable, and isn't going to fly. Come up with some more compelling argument and maybe you can change that consensus. KarlBunker 21:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl, tell me the reasoning for including the links to YEC, OEC, Creationism and Religion and Science articles. There is no mention in any of those articles about Dinosaurs. It seems logical keeping the link to the "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs" article, as it expands on this topic. But one link does not deserve a whole section. That article is also the best place for the discussion of understanding the creationist defence. Your compromise and quieting of the subject doesn't exactly fly with meKilgore Sprout 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kilgore, please don't continue to delete the Religious Perspectives paragraph. If you keep doing so you'll be in violation of the Wikipedia three revert guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR Killdevil 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thing is Kilgore, you argue that we should delete the religious views section because it contains little specifics about dinosaurs. I argue that we should include more information about the religious views in this article, in part for a similar reason. The current compromise, like many compromises, ends up being dissatisfactory to all parties, but from the top of this section, many editors seem to be in favour of it. — Matt Crypto 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just blocked User:Kilgore Sprout for 3rr violation. However, I agree with his arguements regarding the irrelevant links included in the contested section. They have nothing to do with dinos - and I am removing them. Keeping the paragraph and the relig perspectives link. Vsmith 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about dinos, not a debate re: religion and science, so that link is irrelevant. The current paragraph about religious views and the fork article it spawned state that Various religious groups..., but discuss only one. Now if the para and fork are to remain then I'd say someone fighting for their inclusion should expand the fork to include a bunch of religious perspectives on dinos, if such exist. Otherwise it looks like simple POV pushing by and/or for the single religious group mentioned. And if that is the case, begone with it. Vsmith 04:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• This article for the most part is supported by fact and should be left at that, maybe a new article of under the religious areas of view Enlil Ninlil 05:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Matt, my argument is that religion (mostly YEC views) has no relevance here in the discussion of dinosaurs. You are right that the paragraph contains little specifics about dinosaurs. Also the article religious perspectives on dinosaurs contains little specifics about dinosaurs too. But, at least the topic is mentioned. How about adding some of the biblical discoveries on dinosaurs you have to that article? I'd love to read them! Kilgore Sprout 00:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

changing/replacing some images

The images of dinosaurs on this article are placed here for quite a long time, wouldnt it be better to replace some of them with the ones recently uploaded at wiki commons category dinosauria [3]? --Dudo2 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific complaint about the images that are on here? Adding more would be OK I guess, but why replace the existing ones (unless any of them violate the wikiproject dinosaurs image guidelines of course).

Also, I notice that one of my sketches is on that Commons page with the wrong license. I'm not sure on how to change those, but I'd prefer it if it were a gnu license rather than a free for all copyright...Dinoguy2 21:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I took care of it.Dinoguy2 21:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the addition of new images and the upsizing of article imagery were constructive changes. I thought the article previously had just the right mix of text content and supporting imagery. Also, the images in the article were carefully formatted so as to not overpower the text. I wouldn't be averse to SWAPPING out some of the images previously used in the article if better images exist. As it stands, though, very little of the newly-added imagery is really of a high enough quality to justify replacement. Killdevil 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since a good collection of pictures is important to any article on dinosaurs, I think a "Gallery" section would be an excellent idea here. This uses the <gallery> tag; an example can be seen in the Spider web article. KarlBunker 04:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker, I think a gallery at the end of the article would be a good idea. Who knows how to create one? I think the added imagery should be moved there, and the original pics reduced back to their earlier sizes. Killdevil 14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the idea to add a gallery, but how many pictures would be the best idea, and which pictures should we add? On commons there are about 120 - 130 dino images. As far as I know, they now contain all important images originaly uploaded to other language wikipedias (though I didnt check it recently) --Dudo2 19:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a few images on my userpage that could be used in a gallery if needed.Dinoguy2 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They are great images, but on the other hand I think the gallery should be representative and not too much concentrated on theropods. Would be a gallery with around 20-25 images a good solution? --Dudo2 20:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting the indent before we all get scrolled into the Atlantic.) I think a gallery of around 20 images would be great. Can someone tell us how to search through the currently available pictures for "dinosaur", so that various editors can make suggestions on which ones to use? KarlBunker 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest to include some drawings of John Conway. When the most talented paleoartist of the world provides some of his work for free (proving that his excellence is not limited to the esthetic but extends into the ethical), we would be utter niggards not to give it a place of honour in our midst. Being Dutch I cannot help but calculate what artwork of comparable quality by Gregory S. Paul would cost :o).--MWAK 14:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My dream is that one day GSP or Doug Henderson will provide illustrations for every dinosaur article... but until then, it's gonna be a real pain to look through Wikipedia and find every image available to review. I know there are quite a few on commons but don't know how to find them. Looking through museum entries should offer some good pics of skeletal mounts. Other than that, will we just have to browse all the exisitng dino articles for images? I know a lot of very good images by Frederik Spindler [4] have been uploaded recently, I wonder if he has a gallery here somewhere?Dinoguy2 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just go to commons category dinosauria [5] and browse the images on the category's main page and subcategories. On wiki commons, I uploaded Frederik Spindlers images of the following dinosaurs, (these images can be seen in dino taxoboxes here, on english, and slovak wikipedia) - Argentinosaurus, Troodon, Coelophysis, Massospondylus, Dicraeosaurus (skeleton), Spinosaurus, Huayangosaurus, Stegoceras (skeleton), Huayangosaurus, Psittacosaurus, Corythosaurus, Camptosaurus, Dryosaurus. --Dudo2 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You do have Spindler's permission to upload these, I assume?Dinoguy2 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I asked for permission via e-mail and got it febr 18th. --Dudo2 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Did he give permission for only a few or his whole catalogue? There are some great theropod drawings on his site, the only one we have here is Spinosaurus and his Velociraptor skeleton (which actually has innacurate hands, but it's the best picture that's appeared on that entry so far...).Dinoguy2 03:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked for permission only for the 13 images I later uploaded. Ive chosen non theropods since i thought we alredy have a relatively large number of good theropod pics (several uploaded by you, dinoguy) compared to nontheropods. --Dudo2 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The troodon is his too. On the German Wikipedia someone protested because he thought Spindler's spinosaurus was too outrageous ~:^)!--MWAK 08:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Gallery section

A gallery section has been added. I put in a few images I found in a quick search of Commons. Please feel free to add/remove/rearrange. I know there must be lots of great images out there that we can legally use. KarlBunker 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be better to concentrate more on the drawings than on the skeletons? --Dudo2 18:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. I think there's a lot of value and beauty to all the types of images: drawings/paintings, models, skeletons (love that Triceratops!), and imprint-fossils like the Microraptor. KarlBunker 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should showcase all types of images. However, I think they should be arranged by type. Those drawings are awesome, by the way. Another note: I'm going to move some of the images that were added last week from the article into the gallery. Killdevil 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Some notes

Hello,

I am a student at the University of Chicago who has a passion for dinosauria among many other things. I volunteered for Paul Sereno in the cleaning and preparation of Jobaria and also witnessed the preparation of Rugops + Rajasaurus as well. Right now, there are some more surprises in store...

I'd like to point out a couple things though to improve the Dinosaur entry:

Also among the earliest dinosaurs was the primitive Lagosuchus; Saltopus, which was barely larger than a human hand, appeared slightly later.

Lagosuchus and Saltopus are poor examples to use in a dinosaur entry. They are both nomina dubium of very fragmentary remains which might not even be dinosaurian, although they definitely seem to be archosaurs. Instead, since Eoraptor is already mentioned, Herrarasaurus, Coelophysis, or even the primitive sauropod Saturnalia.

Instead of Saltopus being placed as an example of a very small dinosaur, how about using the more well known and feathered (and cool) Epidendrosaurus?

Finally, Seismosaurus is the current record holder for the longest dinosaur. Not Supersaurus, which lost that record when Seismosaurus was released to science. Supersaurus isn't even longer than Argentinosaurus.

Carlos

Good suggestions, except the last--a new study coming out on Supersaurus shows that Seismosaurus is first of all the same thing as Diplodocus, and secondly not nearly as long as first estimated, being about 105ft long. Except for Amphicoelias, Supersaurus is indeed the longest dinosaur at 116 ft (Argentinosaurus was at most 114ft), though Argenitnosaurus and other were much more massive.[6] [7]Dinoguy2 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)