This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
On a related point, why is the current translation using the verb? The paper is clear in what sense the name is being used by the discoverers ,
Etymology. The generic name refers to kosmos (Greek), meaning ornamented, and ceratops (Greek), meaning horned face. The specific name honors Scott Richardson, who discovered the holotype and many other significant fossils from GSENM.
Why the article doesn't just state, "Kosmoceratops (from Greek, meaning "ornamented horned face")" I don't know. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, to be clear, the verb is currently not in the transitive form so it makes the description sound odd. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The word "κόσμος", does in fact mean ornament/decoration. The word currently given, κοσμώ is utterly bizarre (it could, I suppose be a contracted verb or something), but I see no evidence that any verb is meant from the kosmoceratops. I will clarify the etymology and link to Wiktionary entries. Atelaes (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Are these images not copyrighted to the authors of the paper? They're not even low-resolution, which they need to be if it's literally the only available image of the animal for quite some time. I'd remove them myself, but I'm reluctant to since they haven't been removed by anyone else (makes me wonder if I'm overlooking something). Shouldn't we wait for a fair-use reconstruction of the animal? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
They do not come under fair-use so low resolution doesn't apply. If you click on the pictures it shows that they are licensed under a creative commons attribution 2.5 licence, as it says on the PLoS website which the image file links to. This license only requires attribution. On Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses it is listed as free-use for the purposes of Wikipedia. I'm not an expert in this side of Wikipedia but as far as I'm aware this is perfectly allowed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, PLoS is pretty cool, huh? All the licensing information is explained on the image description pages. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I've never seen images from a recent scientific paper legitimately used on Wikipedia so I didn't know what to think. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If anybody is looking for another reference, this week's issue of Newsweek has a two-page article on the Kosmoceratops. It probably doesn't say anything new, but having some diversity in the references is nice. I would add it myself, but I'm not sure where the references are wanted. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)