Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Species of Psittacosaurus

Hello Project,

I am currently in the midst of rewriting the Psittacosaurus article, which is getting quite long as there is a lot known about this dinosaur. The main part that is taking up space is the listing (and description) of all 15 or so species (of which maybe 9 are valid). To cut down on the article size I have split that section off into a separate page (Species of Psittacosaurus), with a link to be provided on the main article when I finish it. This is not usual practice, I understand, but I think Psittacosaurus is a special case as it has the most valid species of any known dinosaur, by far. Please leave comments and/or criticism here or on the talk page of either article. Thank you! Sheep81 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... You were definitely "thinking outside the box"... One major problem i see is that Psittacosaurus is one of the dinosaurs slated for the Wikipedia CD. If the page is split up, that will end up meaning most of the article is no longer on the CD.

My suggestion is to either:

a) delete the info on Hongshanosaurus (which already has its own article anyway), and just provide a link to that page, or

b) start a page on the Psittacosauridae, where the Hongshanosaurus stuff can be moved, along with all of the general info on Psittacosaururidae "(Morphology)".

Either of these options would clear up a fair amount of space for Psittacosaurus, and there would be no need to split the article up at all.

The new info looks really great, but I worry it won't really even be seen on a separate page like that. And moving out Hongshano only makes sense... JMO.--Firsfron 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the Hongshanosaurus article last night. I am still(!) writing the Psittacosaurus article currently... in fact I just updated it. Hongshanosaurus is no longer even mentioned (although it will be, briefly). I still need to add sections on classification, provenance and paleoecology, and add external links and more references, which will make the article quite long as it is. The species list I wrote on the separate page will almost definitely be longer than the rest of the article put together though. The main article has an abbreviated species list in the text of the article and the taxobox, which would probably be sufficient for the CD, I think. The separate article is now linked from the main article so it shouldn't be hard for people to get to it if they are so inclined. Does this address your concerns? If not, please elaborate so that I can either a) explain, or b) see your point and merge the two articles. Sheep81 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I updated the main article even though I had not finished it to prevent the possible merging of my species article (the link on the main article should make the situation more clear). I checked before updating to make sure I was not removing any information in the meantime. Sorry if this ruffles feathers. Back to work! Sheep81 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose feathers you'd be ruffling, since I think it's mostly just the three of us these days. I've nominated the article for Featured.--Firsfron 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. See what happens, I guess! BTW, there are more than 3 of us editing, it's just that you, me, and Dinoguy are the only three blabbing on this talk page on a regular basis. Sheep81 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a feweditors... I've got about 800 dinosaur pages on my watchlist, and aside from a few vandals, I can count the serious dinosaur editors on one hand. We do babble a lot here, but with GreyGirl and Agentsoo recently silent, there are not many others around.--Firsfron 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real problem with a lengthy article for Psittacosaurus, as long as it's well written, good info, etc. etc. I think it's great that we're having this discussion in the first place... how many dinosaur articles can you say might be getting too long? I think we're just too used to stub-length entries. That said... now that I actually look at the species article, this might be the right way to go. Maybe a bit of elaboration for some of the most well-known species or most notable specimens could be copied onto the main page. In fact, as some of those species have as much info as your average genus article, we could make an exception and have a few separate species pages for these guys.Dinoguy2 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I finished the Psittacosaurus article (finally). Go look how long it is and why I thought it was necessary to move the species descriptions out (still up for debate, of course). If someone wants to add more information about the species on the main article, be my guest. Perhaps someone can rig up a chart like at Capra (genus) even. Look at the ridiculous References section... nobody will ever say I don't cite my sources. Heh. Sheep81 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, even though there are only two objects so far, I think we are pretty close. Looks like we'll be converting the article to footnotes if we want to achieve the consensus we need, I'll work on that. Otherwise there doesn't appear to be any major complaints about the article itself, at least not so far. Sheep81 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We shall see. I apologise, I suppose: I should probably have warned you before nominating. It's possible some of these constructive criticisms will be pretty scathing... A little late now, I realize. Just gird yourself for anything, Sheep: useful stuff or really baffling comments... Try to not take any comment personally. --Firsfron 07:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No prob. My policy for this (and for the Ankylosaurus peer review) is just to say thank you every time, no matter what they say. The footnotes may actually be better for the average reader who might not be familiar with Harvard referencing (which I personally prefer). I just need to figure out how to do it. Sheep81 09:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was wrong with the Harvard refs, as they're acceptable per WP policy, but whatever. If you look at the List of Dinosaurs page, under Tenchisaurus, you'll see a footnote ref. You can use this as a basis.--Firsfron 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The notes and refs section on Dinosaur also uses footnotes. It's an FA, so I assume this format would be a good template for Psittacosaurus.Dinoguy2 15:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments on the article have been really contructive so far, and if you read the article now, it is already so much better than it was even 24 hours ago. I still plan on converting to footnotes some time over the next few hours, although I have to go right now. Someone else can do it if they have the initiative, otherwise I will get it when I return. Sheep81 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi (to Sheep et al) – latecomer on this one – I apologise as I’ve been watching other bits of Wikipedia more closely and had not realised the extent of work being put in on this excellent article. Rather than making edits, as it’s reached such a mature stage, I thought I’d propose my edits here, for agreement. Judging from the activity level of this correspondence, I doubt my proposed contribution will be overlooked! Pardon the length of this message, as it includes both original text and proposed text.

1. Firstly, I would be concerned ref. the picture – I have no suitable substitute but I feel that this one, in present form, is not an asset to the article. The head (very important feature) is not at all clear, on my screen at least, and the creature was supposed to be bipedal (at least for the most part). [Sheep says: I have the same thoughts about the picture and I hope to get another one soon. But for now it is the only one available. However, the artist does have other pictures (there is one linked in the "External Links" section). If someone wanted to help out, you could email the artist and ask if we can use that one instead, as it is more clear.]
2. I would change the enormous Triceratops. to: the 5.5 tonne Triceratops. to be more 'encyclopaedic' in language (however, does it need to have any size info/comment here – does it help?). [Sheep: I don't know that "enormous" is that un-encyclop(a)edic, but if you have a better (perhaps less sensational) word, feel free to change it. I don't know if adding a specific stat would be good as there are no other statistics in the lead paragraphs and it would be odd if the first one we added was for a different animal.]
3. I then get into ‘comma pedantry’: Psittacosaurus is not as familiar to the general public as its distant relative, Triceratops, but it is one of the most completely known dinosaur genera. Change to: Psittacosaurus is not as familiar to the general public as its distant relative, Triceratops but it is one of the most completely known dinosaur genera.
4. I would change: The generic name is composed of the Greek words ψιττακος (psittakos; "parrot") and σαυρος (sauros; "lizard"), suggested by the superficially parrot-like beak of these animals. to The generic name is composed of the Greek words ψιττακος (psittakos; "parrot"), suggested by the superficially parrot-like beak of these animals and σαυρος (sauros; "lizard"). [Sheep: Hmmm... in my opinion it looks better if the Greek words are closer together, but you are right, it may not be as clear as it could be. I think I will add something like "and their reptilian nature" to the end of the sentence maybe.]
5. With a very high sample size, the diversity of Psittacosaurus can be analyzed more completely than most dinosaur genera, to With a very high sample size, the diversity of Psittacosaurus can be analyzed more completely than that of most dinosaur genera, [Sheep: Right, I should have added that in the first place.]
6. Would 'digit(s)' be preferable to 'finger(s)' wherever the reference to fingers occurs? [Sheep: As long as it is clear which foot we are talking about (fore or hind), you are probably right.
7. an opening in the skull between the eyes socket and nostril, was lost during the evolution of Psittacosauridae, but is still found in most other ceratopsians, and in fact most other archosaurs. to an opening in the skull between the eye socket and nostril, was lost during the evolution of Psittacosauridae but is still found in most other ceratopsians and in fact most other archosaurs. (i.e. remove two commas and 'eyes' to 'eye').
8. More comma pedantry: While Psittacosaurus is known from dozens of fossil specimens, most other dinosaur species are known from far fewer, and many are represented by only a single specimen. to While Psittacosaurus is known from dozens of fossil specimens, most other dinosaur species are known from far fewer and many are represented by only a single specimen.
9. The integument, or body covering, of Psittacosaurus is known from a Chinese specimen which most likely comes from the Yixian Formation of Liaoning. to The integument, or body covering, of Psittacosaurus is known from a Chinese specimen, which most likely comes from the Yixian Formation of Liaoning. (comma).
10. was illegally exported from China, in violation of Chinese law, but was purchased by a German museum and arrangements are being made to was illegally exported from China, in violation of Chinese law but was purchased by a German museum and arrangements are being made (comma again).
11. I would suggest a more specific technical word here: ...long, were also preserved, arranged in a row down the upper surface of the tail to ... long, were also preserved, arranged in a row down the dorsal surface of the tail. [Sheep: I would prefer to use "dorsal" too, as that is the correct word for it, and I actually had that word in their first, but I wondered if most people reading the article wiould immediately understand that, and articles are not supposed to use jargon without explaining it first. I could provide a link to the dorsal article, maybe something like "the dorsal (upper) surface"... good thought.]
12. As the structures are only found in a single row on the tail, it is unlikely that they were used for thermoregulation, but they may have been useful for communication through some sort of display to As the structures are only found in a single row on the tail, it is unlikely that they were used for thermoregulation but they may have been useful for communication through some sort of display (comma).
13. This indicates relatively rapid growth compared to most reptiles and marsupial mammals, but slower than modern birds and placental mammals to This indicates relatively rapid growth compared to most reptiles and marsupial mammals but slower than modern birds and placental mammals (comma again).

Apologies for the comma pedantry – I have observed the principle here that commas do not usually precede a conjunction (e.g. ‘and’ or ‘but’). I’m sure that could be overruled if the majority prefer. Sorry not to have offered help before! [Sheep: I was always taught that you use a comma before a conjunction if the second phrase could be a stand-alone sentence. In fact that is what it says at comma (punctuation)] If you want to include any or all of these alterations, do you want me to make them or will you? Great article! - :-) Ballista 04:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got some worthwhile suggestions there, Ballista. I'm not sure which ones Sheep will want to incorporate (the "digit" one seems a must IMO), but he did say earlier he didn't care if anyone updated the article: it is WP, after all. That said, I won't touch it myself, since I did nominate it for Featured, and the overviewers do tend to frown on self-noms... BTW, welcome to the discussion board! :) --Firsfron 05:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your suggestions above. Thank you! Except I messed up the numbering, grrr... fixed. Sheep81 06:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as the commas go... Sheep's got most of them in the right places, as far as I can tell. No problems there.--Firsfron 17:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

About the image: I'll e-mail the artist. Which one should I request? There's a lovely head-shot here, showing 5 species' heads, plus Hongshano's. But I guess that would actually be better on the species page, now that it's separate...? Or I could request the family portrait. Comments? (adding my sig:)--Firsfron 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely go with the head-shot pic. Far more encyclopedic and informative. Mgiganteus1 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, Mgig.--Firsfron 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to show the headshot comparison. Ask him if we can crop one head out so you can actually see it in the taxobox though. Sheep81 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm on it.--Firsfron 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the alterations - commas are still a thing of mine but I am a pedant! I tend to think if a part of a sentence could stand alone, it should be preceded by a full stop (period) or a semicolon. No matter, tho' - great article and thanks for not being annoyed by my suggestions. Ballista 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pedantry. Noted. Commas. Must. Die. :) Sheep81 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (Baaa :-) Ballista 05:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Look, all three of the reviewers now support the nomination. That's awesome, but we will probably need more than three votes of support. If you know anyone outside of the Project that is familiar with the rules for FAs, you might want to consider asking them to review the article and provide constructive criticism (please don't ask them to support it, obviously... let them read it and decide on their own). Almost there! Sheep81 01:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone see the fantastic new skull image one of the reviewers got for us? PERFECT for the taxobox. Sheep81 08:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Say, Ballista, you've offered some good suggestions here on Psittacosaurus. I wonder if you don't mind looking over some of the Dinosaur articles nominated for the Wikipedia CD. You could leave your comments here, or just edit. These are going on the CD, so it's important someone takes a look at them before they're etched forever into plastic...--Firsfron 01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I never heard back from Dinosauromorpha. I have been having some problems getting e-mails the past few days, though, so I don't know if they never got the e-mail, they got it and responded, or never responded.--Firsfron 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Got the permission! Whew! Here, in part, is the response:

Hello!

Yes, It's ok, use it. But be warned - it is not complete, meaning there are some more species also known from skulls. The detail head "B" is of an adult Hongshanosaurus

--Firsfron 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image, which is now at Image:Psittacosauridae.JPG

Nice work, Mgig!--Firsfron 02:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a great step forward, thanks to all involved. I don't want to whinge or upset anyone but I still feel that the original drawing (that used to be in the box) does more to confuse than to inform, mostly because of the head. Is there anyone among us who can draw? - Ballista 03:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm an occasional artist, and I'm quite proficient with Photoshop. It might be possible for me to work on a new image, however I do rather like the new taxbox image, and these new head shots really are lovely. If it's decided we need more images for Psittaco, I could possibly work on something. --Firsfron 04:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I like the old txbx drawing (not for the taxobox, but for the page in general). It's not the same old flat-on lateral view, it's got a little dynamic gesturing going on. It seems like whenever a dinosaur is depicted in anything but a lateral running pose, people get all confused (cf. Conway's Deinonychus...), which doesn't say much for paleoart. For what it's worth, I have this drawing of Psittacosaurus [1], but it's a few years old and not as good from a technical standpoint.Dinoguy2 04:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that drawing, Dinoguy, is that the quills were actually on the proximal tail, not the distal tail as in that piece of art. Other than that it is quite serviceable. As for the pic in the article, I actually like the position of the head cause you can see the expanded jugals when the head is viewed from the front. But the way it is drawn is slightly confusing, yes. I still like it though. Sheep81 10:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, no objection whatever to 'dinoart' and, in that respect, nothing against said pic. However, in an encyclopaedic context, I feel something a little more illustrative of the consensus view of likely appearance is more useful to the reader (one of our reasons for what we do). I think the one you have just shown is better, from that point of view. :-) - Ballista 04:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Got another vote of support on FAC. That's four (five if you count the nominator's vote, heh). I've been trolling the FAC page to see who's active and then making review requests on those users' talk pages. He's the only one to respond so far though. Sheep81 10:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like your hard work paid off, Sheep. Psittaco is Featured! Congrats! :)--Firsfron 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi - just visited 'Featured articles' and seen it there - heartiest congratulations, Sheep, on inspirational drive and energy. - Ballista 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, we got our star now - good work! - Ballista 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur CD

Thanks Firsfron - I've taken a look at Alamosaurus and done a two-stage edit - kindly review and feedback and I'll do some more if you think the work is appropriate. Interestingly, it took me down a route of starting a new article, to clear one of the red links. Ballista 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - P.S.: I've just done another 'comma job' on Allosaurus - please review that too.

Great! One thing to remember: If you see a red wikilink to a dinosaur genus, it's probably a typo. We've only got two missing dinosaurs on our list of missing dinosaurs now, and I expect those last two will be created shortly. One of the last sentences in the Allosaurus article still needs work, IMO: This skeleton was initially discovered by a Swiss team, led by Kirby Siber, which later excavated a second Allosaurus, "Big Al Two", which is the best preserved skeleton of its kind to date. Seems to run on, and is fragmented. Thanks again for your assistance. :) --Firsfron 04:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - I've got that sentence - sorry to miss it first time around - still took me two edits! Red link wasn't to a dinosaur genus. It was a geological formation link and led me down a whole series of edits/creations. Yes, I was well aware of your excellent work in gathering up/marshalling dinosaur articles; you persuaded me to do four of them. Great stuff :-) Ballista 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the Alamosaurus article there, Ballista. I bet if we tried we could get that one up to featured, or at least "good" status as well. Sheep81 08:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hee! One article at a time, maybe? Although I'm surprised at how quickly all those changes were made to Psittaco...--Firsfron 08:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So far had a 'sweep' through all the 'A' dinosaurs on the CD list - Ballista 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice, Ballista! I'll check them out... And thanks! --Firsfron 06:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just finished dusting off the 'B' dinos on the CD list. Please let me know if you want me to be doing anything more radical than what I am doing. Do I need to revisit previously done ones (since more edits are bound to have come in)?

If the articles are on your watchlist, your watchlist will tell you when they've been updated. If Elmo12456 has edited them, definitely do check them! He appears to be a young grade school student, and he does edit articles. The results are often not so great.

As far as other things for the dinosaurs on the CD: most of these well-known dinosaurs have junior synonyms. If you wanted to (it's sort of a pain), you could check out their 'what links here' page, find any pages that redirect to them, and explain on the page why the reader has been directed to that article (since they won't know): "Samplesaurus was also known as Eusamplesaurus, until 2002, when Dr John Doe of Sample University proved in his paper that Eusamplesaurus is the same animal as Samplesaurus. Since the two are the same, Samplesaurus, as the older of the two names, is the only valid genus." (Or something like that).

It is sort of a pain, but you did ask... ;) --Firsfron 06:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did - thanks for the tidy-up of Brachiosaurus - great improvement - I'll see if I'm up to the latest challenge you've offered (new departure!). - Ballista 06:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bit of the 'usual' housewirk on the 'C' & 'D' dinosaurs. - Ballista 07:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Now up to Hypsilophodon (i.e. No 19 on the list). - Ballista 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. You're fast, Ballista. :)--Firsfron 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just finished up to (& incl.) Lesothosaurus - I'll take a deep breath before diving into the 'M' dinos....... - Ballista 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

'M' dinos and Oviraptor tidied today. That's 30 done over and 17 to go - Ballista 05:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

'P' dinos done over and ready for review. - Ballista 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Great job as always, Ballista. :)--Firsfron 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the 'S's, now, ready for review as you do. - Ballista 05:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just the two 'biggies', T. rex & Velociraptor to go, now. Also, I had already done a lot of work on Dimetrodon, Ichthyosaur, Plesiosaur, and Pterosaur, a while back - are they going on the dino CD? I also added Pliosaur, a few days ago. However, if they're to go on the dino CD, I'll revisit them. - Ballista 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's not really a dinosaur CD: it's a Wikipedia CD which will have dinosaur articles, among many others, on it. The team that is making the CD chose a few dinosaurs, and asked for a few others. I chose a few that I thought would best represent Dinosauria, trying to get well-known members from most major families, since the original listing was a little saurischian-centric (it was almost all theropods and sauropods).

I've taken a look at your edits, and am really happy with almost all of them. You've done a nice job, inclding some major work on Scelidosaurus and a few others. Thanks Ballista.--Firsfron 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging comment, Firsfron - I've been thru' Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor, now. That's the whole list, unless I've accidentally missed any. (I should have known that it was a WP CD, not a 'dino' CD - I think I did, when I first followed your link then I kind of drifted off into my own concept!). - Ballista 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Journal Illustrations: Copyright Status?

Quick question i can't seem to find in a cursory search: What's the copyright status of illustrations/figures from scientific journals? I'd like to upload some of Reichel's Archaeopteryx illustrations from 1941 [2], if possible.Dinoguy2 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Can't use 'em without express permission. Otherwise we'd have like 8 million pictures per article by now, I'd have filled them all. You can freely use pictures (or anything else for that matter) published before January 1, 1923 though (I just found that out... damn that Osborn publishing Psittacosaurus IN 1923... I could kill him! Except... well, you know.) Sheep81 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link:

Similarly, though scientific data are usually exempt from copyright, the specific figures and styles of presentation used to present that data will in most cases merit copyright protection. Also, in some cases facts that are exempt from copyright may still be protected as a result of patent law.

Sheep81 16:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All genera complete

We've got a stub for every dinosaur listed on the list of dinosaurs page and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/missing page. Well done, guys!

Now that we're done with the first stage, the rest can slowly be implimented. I saw Dinoguy working on a lot of taxoboxes, but there are still a lot of non-nomen nudem left without taxoboxes. For me, the easiest way has been to just go into the category page, and mass add them to each valid genus.

On some articles, we're still missing the three cats we wanted to use on each article. I plan to use CatScan to rectify this. CatScan's data is about six days behind, and does give some bad data, but it's still a lot better than clicking on every single dinosaur to see if they have all the proper cats.

Now that we've finished the stubs, I guess now would be a good time to make mention of the articles which redirect to them. Other thoughts...?--Firsfron 17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Classification of birds

In many articles, including Dinosaur, Class Aves has been placed within Superorder Dinosauria. To me, this does not make sense, since Class is a higher level rank than Superorder. Am I missing something here? Mgiganteus1 17:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Likewise, in the taxobox on the Bird page, Class Aves is placed within Archosauria, which is unranked, but below Infraclass.

This is somethingthat probably should be standardized across all entries to avoid confusion. Ideally, in my opinion at least, the taxonomy section on each entry should include two sections--classification and phylogeny. In the ranked classificaton section, groups which are traditionally paraphyletic shouldn't be indented beneath their ancestor groups, rather, the ancestor groups should be marked as paraphyletic (see the taxobox on Synapsid). The phylogeny section should present a family ree style, unranked cladogram, showing evolutionary relationships rather than categorizations like class and Superorder. The page on Avicephala uss this system. What do you guys think?Dinoguy2 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation Presentation

I'm not too keen on the rather unencyclopedic pronunciation presentations (a-LOK-o-don) one sees in several articles so I was wondering if one could follow the International Phonetic Alphabet for that. I've seen it in such disparate articles as Pterosaur and Algarve, so it's common use and another way of improving the articles Dracontes 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Dracontes. Technically according to WP policy, we should be using IPA, but I'm not really familiar with it, so I haven't been adding any pronunciations (either IPA or traditional pronunciation schemes) to any of the articles.--Firsfron 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here.Dinoguy2 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it also but I intend to be so in the next weeks. One only has to ask the dreadful question: what pronunciation scheme should one follow? "Anglicized", "church Latin" or "strict Latin"? The obvious differences are the syllabic stress and the interpretation of certain letters' correspondance to certain sounds. Few links to get you acquainted with the problem (I solved it for myself but I'm not sure my solution would suit everyone.):

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• Look for yourselves

In my opinion, which, may be far from the mark and the original languanges, each letter should correspond to only one sound and one should keep it simple. Maybe we can start a trend and get this problem over with. (Which means Centrosaurus would perhaps have to renamed again to Eucentrosaurus ::-/ ) Dracontes 09:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does Centrosaurus have to be renamed Eucentrosaurus??--Firsfron 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This came up many years ago... Centrosaurus and Kentrosaurus have the same derivation and pronunciation, which I think is Dracontes' point. However, the names are okay under the newest ICZN rules, and even if they weren't, it would be Kentrosaurus that would have to change because it was named 11 years later (btw, that is why someone made up the name Kentrurosaurus). The name Eucentrosaurus arose because Centrosaurus was thought to be preoccupied by a lizard named in 1843. The ICZN ruled that the original usage was invalid and so the name Centrosaurus remains.

Also, if we are going to use a pronunciuation guide, I suggest http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinosi.htm .

Sheep81 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so that's how it went :-] Though we'd still have to transcribe that pronunciation guide into IPA.

I got myself thinking a bit more into this and realized that this pronunciation issue will be the source of some controversy and perhaps detracting of more important things.

Not that it doesn't have its merit. Scientific nomenclature was supposedly, or came to be regarded as, a normalized way to vehicule biological information among languages, although something is always lost in terms of intelligibility due to the vocal habits of everyone who utters the names (not to mention speaking sientific names may be the prime source of mistypes and misprints).

So I'm a bit at loss here: should one just drop the pronunciation guide altogether? Actually no one uses it for any other taxa as far as I've seen here in Wikipedia. At least it's a safe bet we can use it in derived english terms (tyrannosaur, chasmosaurine, &c).

Anyway, I'll be all too happy to remove the existent pronunciation aids in the pertinent articles if you agree with such an action.

Dracontes 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the guy who produced that pronunciation guide (Ben Creisler) is a linguist who specializes in biological nomenclature, especially dinosaurs, so I would trust his pronunciations and I don't think it would be too hard to convert them to IPA. But I definitely won't cry if someone removes all the pronunciations (I don't get anything out of them myself). Sheep81 10:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If any of these articles ever reach featured status, they will probably need the IPA pronunciations per WP guidelines.--Firsfron 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If pronunciation is displayed at all, then yes, it should be in IPA format, but I don't think it has to be there at all (I can't find it in the vast majority of featured articles). Sheep81 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Sheep on this - not much of a turn-on for me either but OK to have a standardised system, if anyone feels they help the articles or the readers. - Ballista 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dracorex

It's on the main page, guys! Congrats, Dinoguy! :)--Firsfron 01:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but... the fact is wrong! Or does somebody have a cite that Dracorex was named after that specific dragon in Harry Potter? Bakker's explanation for the name is different, just that some kid told him it looked like "a dragon".Dinoguy2 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Paleontology

Why are stubs and links from cynodonts redirecting to this project? This is a project on dinosaurs, not paleontology in general. Cynodonts are synapsids, not diapsids, let alone dinosaurs. Did I miss something when I read through the project description? Moonsword 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What stubs and links are you talking about, Moonsword? I know of no redirects which go to this project, since this is supposed to be a 'backpage', any redirect from an article to here would be in error. If you are asking why a talk page might direct someone here, it might be because the animal in question was at one time considered a dinosaur, as shown on the list of dinosaurs page. But without knowing what you're specifically talking about, I cannot answer you further.--Firsfron 04:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to Cynodont to see and it has a link: "You can help the WikiProject Dinosaurs by expanding it" I haven't checked things like Plesiosaur, Pterosaur etc., just yet, although I have contributed to them some time back. It is certainly not consistent with a dinosaur project - on the other hand it's sort of 'inclusive' and friendly and may pull more editors into WP Dinosaurs. It may be sensible to have a different template to put on 'wannabe dinosaur' articles, so no-one thinks we're confused about the defininition of dinosaurs, which should remain very explicit. I seem to remember spending quite a time editing the definition bit. May be time to formulate a policy on this. I don't have enough familiarity with the inner workings of Wikipedia but am assuming one can trace or locate all such templates that are on the Wikipedia, to check their appropriateness? Ballista 04:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just checked and it's not on Dimetrodon, Plesiosaur, Ichthyosaur, Mosasaur, Pterosaur, Pterodactyl. Dimorphodon has a WP Reptiles message. It would seem that Moonsword has highlighted an inconsistency here. Ballista 05:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, these are mostly on some of the various articles about synapsids, including the cynodonts. I haven't seen them anywhere else. There weren't any redirects that pointed here.

Some of these are probably there in error. I'd double check with list of dinosaurs to make sure the animal in question hasn't been thought of as a dinosaur at some point, and if not, remove the tag. If it's a stub tag, use WP:Paleontology.Dinoguy2 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OH, wait, i see the problem. The paleo-stub template includes a link to WP:Dinosaurs. Is there a WP:Paleo...? Either way, the template needs to be changed.Dinoguy2 16:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Dinoguy. I've reverted the template back to its original form, taking out the link to WP:Dinosaurs and removing Eoraptor's image.

As far as tracing templates and pages, Ballista, yes, that's easy to do. The 'what links here' link on the <---sidebar can be used. CatScan also works for categories, although its data is about a week behind "real time".--Firsfron 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure exactly what was going on. Moonsword 19:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Citipati

Been working to beef up this article, so any input/copyediting, clarification, etc would be most welcome. I only have three PDFs on this beast, and I won't be able to dig up my paper copy of the description until tomorrow, so if anybody can add info from other papers, that would be cool. Two things I really need help with: IPA pronucniation (I'm clueless), and pictures. The DigiMorph image is good, but it's only the upper portion of the skull, we should at least have the whole thing for the taxobox. This is one of the most unique-looking and often-illustrated dinosaurs out there (when it was Oviraptor at least), it would be a shame if we didn't have any good images here. Though, I'd bet my life it was fully-feathered, as would 99.99% of paleontologists, which might make getting accurate life restoartions tougher.Dinoguy2 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ceratopsian images

hey all, anyone have an email contact for Peter Dodson? I fiugred he'd be a good person to ask about ceratopsian images. From his book the old exhibition of all the Protoceratops skulls sounded pretty funky, and he had b/w photos in his book (Horned Dinosaurs) Cas Liber 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible he's on one of the dinosaur mailing lists, Cas? We do need some good images, outside of the few well-known genera. --Firsfron 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guarantee you that he isn't. However, you can look up Andy Farke on the DML, he is a ceratopsian guy. Sheep81 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the tip on Andy Farke, will hunt around Cas Liber 11:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yippee! First cab off the rank. I rang Peter Trusler tonight and he agreed for the use of a Leptoceratops he depicted on the page, and sent me a digital image Cas Liber 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Achievements

A (still rather brief) list of this project's achievements can now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Achievements. They're all all I know of; if anyone knows of others, say, before I joined the project, feel free to add them! Also: I'm hoping we can add Psittacosaurus soon!--Firsfron 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I'd like to propose Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/missing be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/shortest articles. The list as it is now will probably only ever contain a few animals, and as such has IMO lived out its usefulness. It would be more useful to this group as a list of the shortest articles, so that the shortest stubs can be built up over time. Any missing articles can certainly be included as well, since they are by definition also very short. CatScan can be used to pull up the size (in kb) of all the articles, and the data can be updated on a weekly (or so) basis. I figured I'd ask here first before any such change was made. --Firsfron 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

fine with me Sheep81 01:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sound plan. - Ballista 01:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good ideaDinoguy2 02:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. It's done.--Firsfron 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick work - good list - we should 'get cracking'. One question from the ignorant and great unwashed: are Calamospondylus and Aristosuchus one and the same? If so, I'll have a go at expanding one and disbanding (or rather putting a small reference) the other - Ballista 04:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Thescelosaurus! page, which I use often, "Often confused with Calamospondylus, Aristosuchus appears to be a valid compsognathid based on the structure of its pubis." --Firsfron 04:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good-oh - thanks for the enlightenment - it's so difficult to keep up with all opinions etc. I'll get on with it, but not today. - Ballista 05:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a book with nearly an entire chapter about these guys. If you like I can write the article(s). Sheep81 09:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what's Ballista going to work on?--Firsfron 10:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No probs to me if it gets done by Sheep81 - in fact that's great! - it'll be better with fuller info, as they're a bit thin at present; no offence to me whatever - I'll press on trolling thru' the CD list, for now & perhaps pick up on one or two of the other thinnest stubs as I go. Too late for me tonight, I'll do something in the morning. - Ballista 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope no-one minds (esp. Sheep, who will, I hope add yet more to it) - I've messed about with Aristosuchus (and Apatodon). - Ballista 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC) (in fact, first four on the list have had a tinkering but it's not going to be easy to bring fictitious creatures up to more than 1 kb) :-) - Ballista 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanded Atlantosaurus & Avipes. - Ballista 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering who was working on those! 'Cause I hadn't touched them, and they were much bigger than when last I checked.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at three more: Aachenosaurus Acanthopholis & Aepisaurus - Ballista 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the 'A' dinos given basic expansion and Cetiosaurus - however, Asiatosaurus doesn't seem to register changes, acc. to 'popups'. - Ballista 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Oh, on pop-ups, sometimes you have to wait for the database to update, because it might show outdated article sizes, but usually if you just hit 'reload', that'll fix it. We're really going thru the top of the list! Makes me feel a little sorry for Zizhongosaurus. ;) --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel sorry for him no longer - and a few others from all over the list - Ballista 04:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image review?

(See my initial comments on Talk:Deinonychus) Scorpionman's recent, well inentioned addition of images which violate the guidelines made me think that maybe we should have some kind of image review forum or image sub-page for this project. That way, we could discuss the appropriateness of images before they're added to articles. Not sure how practical it would end up being vs. just reverting but, thought i'd throw it out there for discussion.Dinoguy2 17:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You have my whole hearted agreement as this would stave off edit wars and such drama... from the articles. Besides I'd like to feature some of my own art here and I rather be told off the bat if a drawing of a particular dinosaur has too much leeway put into it. Dracontes 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We really are in need of drawings, so if you can, feel free! We can always veto them on Dinoguy's proposed image sub-page. I'm in favor of both ideas.--Firsfron 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep - I'm up for the idea of an image sub-page - just creating the page could well start attracting some piccies and it would be a very practical way of discussing pros & cons of any proposed pics before they're hung up on the public washing line. - Ballista 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! I've put there a picture you might find interesting to consider. Dracontes 10:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the most reliable images are those of skeletons. I am kicking myself I didn't take better pix when I was in Belgium (at the museum filled with all the Iguanadon skeletons). I got a Kentrosaurus photo in Berlin though :) Cas Liber 12:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive #3

Our talk page was 91KB long, so I archived over 49KB of that, which still leaves over 41KB out here. I did not archive any active discussions. Sheep81 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Dinosaur Campaign

Well, now that we have gotten Psittacosaurus featured, I say we do it again. In fact, look at WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones. Not only do they get a hurricane featured every month, it is actually their ONLY stated goal to get ALL tropical-cyclone-related articles featured. Now I am not suggesting that we get every single dinosaur-related article featured, as there are clearly many dinosaurs that don't have enough known about them. But I bet that if we wanted, we could get a dinosaur featured every month.

My suggestion is this: At the beginning of every month we get together and decide on an article, either one that is fairly complete now or one that we write from scratch, get it peer reveiwed in the first half of the month, then once it seems to pass that, get it on the FAC page in the second half. We could even get several articles peer reviewed and then pick the best one to be our FAC. After awhile it will start to become second nature to write articles in a way that will get them featured. I don't think we should settle for anything less. Sheep81 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With the writing talent and scientific minds assembled here, there's no reason we can't do it. I'm all for it.--Firsfron 06:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What it is to be slow - I never saw anything happen with the Psittacosaurus article - you mean it made the grade? Well done! However, it still has no 'star' on the heading, as per the 'Tropical cyclone' featured articles do. Yes, I'm up for helping in this endeavour, however, I have periods in which I don't open the computer, so am not 100% reliable for ongoing projects. - Ballista 06:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No one added the star to Psittaco, but it's featured: check its talk page. As for working on getting articles featured... you mean you don't want to single-handedly get Aachenosaurus featured? Well then, how about Albisaurus? ;)

I kid, of course. Any ideas on the next candidate?--Firsfron 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea. In fact, why could just go through The Big 20 list one by one, or pick from that based on the current status of the articles there. I worked on Velociraptor a bit yesterday, and it really needs a lot of work, especially for such a popular dinosaur. My vote would probably be for Velociraptor if we wanted a challenge, or maybe Tyrannosaurus, which already has a peer review and is a one-time FAC.Dinoguy2 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have lots of ideas. But I am biased towards ones I have written (Albertosaurus, Ankylosaurus). We could also pick one of the "Big 20" like Dinoguy said.

By the way, I think we ought to have a separate page for this so we don't chew up space on this talk page. I made a preliminary version here: User:Sheep81/FeaturedDinoInitiative. Feel free to make comments, suggestions, or criticisms (including whether the page is necessary in the first place). If nobody objects, I'll make a real page out of it. Sheep81 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You've got be bloody kidding me right? I suggest making a collaboration & everyone rejects it. Now Sheepy makes a page based on the tropical cyclone COLLABORATION (!!!), & everyone accepts it!!!!???? We have the "Big 20", whos goal is to get those articles featured, & nobody accepted it at first. I don't know whats going on here but I don't like this project very much any more..... Spawn Man 02:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, Spawn Man, but the reason why I had decided against volunteering for the 'Big 20' was because I wanted to focus on some of the smaller articles that no one wants to write. I felt there were many people focusing on the big-name 'celebrity' dinosaurs, and I really wanted to focus on lesser-known ones, since no one was writing about most of them. I didn't think it was the best idea to focus "all of our attention" (as you put it) on just 2% of the articles. It had nothing to do with your idea, and more about what I wanted to accomplish.--Firsfron 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For the last time guys, I'm not talking about the big 20!!!! I'm talking about the collaboration (now quietly forgotten in archive 2 or 3), which I proposed before my absence caused by my mother being hospitalized. So that would be under 2 months ago. Apart from me, Jayant supported it. Happy Camper commented on it. Now that Sheep asks for pratically the exact same thing, everyone accepts it. And just incase anyone asks again, I'm not 15!!!! One guy said that ages ago & cause I didn't see the comment everyone thought that I accepted them. Im not 15! Spawn Man 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'm writing this AFTER my response to the below issue, so please assume the same vein in this response. I like the idea of a special sub-page, to co-ordinate the initiative - if not, it will be less easy to focus - is it unwise and imprudent (or even impudent) to propose that we revisit the issue of a basic fixed format as a 'skeleton' for all articles, so that they are easier to edit/expand without omitting or muddling topic areas? We don't currently have consistency of headings or batting order, within articles, which may be helpful (or would you feel that it would be too restrictive or stifling?). Heated debate aside, this project has really woken up! Thanks to ALL you guys, for all the ideas and sweat that have gone into everything so far. - Ballista 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Hey everyone, it was Spawn's idea! Shout it from the rooftops: fantastic idea, Spawn! Okay, now that that's out of the way, how bout we actually start working on this? Remember nobody is committing anyone to work on any article and if you would like to send your own article to peer review or to FAC, you are of course welcome to do whatever you like and someone will most likely support you. But Dinoguy has nominated Velociraptor to be our next Featured Dinosaur, which will need collaboration to improve (very doable). I would also like to nominate Albertosaurus, which I just rewrote (again), but could probably use a bit of copy-editing or other work (dive right in). Any other nominations?

I would also personally like to hear more opinions on whether a separate sub-page for the Featured Dinosaur Initiative is necessary (or if the Initiative itself is necessary). I think we have already heard from me, Firsfron, Dinoguy, and Ballista, and maybe Spawn Man (?), but there are many other members of the Project besides us (Dracontes? Jayant? Soo? Mgig?). BTW I will be out of town until Sunday. I may possibly be able to check in but I don't see myself doing a ton of editing while I'm gone. Sheep81 02:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Get f#@ked you loathesome little man. Why do we have to have a dinosaur initiative? Why not just call it a collaboration & put it on the collaboration section on community portal? The idea of this whole "nominating it for FAC & then nominating it here & then editing it there & then if it fails it still can stay there" thing isn't very simple nor is it easy to maintain or understand. Collaboration = Nominate (any article you wish). Vote. Fix article. Go yay...

Why not even open up a collaboration & a featured dinosaur taskforce (instead of ungodly name FeaturedDinoInitiative, which sounds more like a university torture system rather than a vote created to get dinosaurs featured every month). I think it's very doable that we open both collaborations. I like the idea of both being open at once, one designed to attract editors & to get smaller articles up & running & the other to get FAC to actually be featured. Thoughts? Spawn Man 12:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You know Spawn, nobody is ever going to back your projects ever again if you resort to these immature outburts and insult other editors like this. You want people to quit calling you a 15 year old? Stop acting like one.Dinoguy2 13:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Firsfron 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Somebody should start an official Collaboration page (basically the same thing as what I was proposing, like Spawn said). I think once there is an actual page set up it will encourage more participation than just throwing ideas around here on the talk page. If nobody gets around to it, I'll do it when I get back. We can definitely have more than one article up at once too (we should limit it though, so that there can actually be a focus). Sheep81 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a good trip and weekend! - Ballista 05:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)