Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs
| The current WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration article is Confuciusornis. The last article for collaboration was: Brachiosaurus. Feel free to cast your vote for the next article. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Archives
- Archive #1 - Opening discussions, reactivating the Project & disputes about stubs.
- Archive #2 - Discussions about categories, classification, free journal articles, nomina dubia, and images.
- Archive #3 - Discussions about nomenclature, outside collaborations, and the Pal(a)eosaurus mess.
- Archive #4 - Discussions about copyright status, classification, pronunciation, image review, collaboration, Psittacosaurus getting featured, Dracorex on the front page, and the end of red links on the List of dinosaurs page.
- Archive #5 - Discussions about redesign of the Project page, geological formations, classification, article layout and content, Europasaurus on the main page, and the beginning of an official collaboration.
- Archive #6 - Discussions about classification taxonomy, anatomy, and Velociraptor getting featured.
- Archive #7 - Discussions about Bambiraptor posing as Velociraptor, push for work, Zigong Museum, Tyrannosaurus rex and Lufengosaurus on the front page, maps\times\sizes, and categorization.
- Archive #8 - Discussions of collaborations, trouble articles, nomina nuda, and images.
- Archive #9 - Stegosaurus featured, pronunciation/translation issues, dinosaur illustration collaboration, Diplodocus FAC, and logistics.
- Archive #10 - "Unicerosaurus" saved from deletion, thagomizer comic, FACs of Diplodocus and Triceratops, discussion of policy for nomina nudums, nomina dubia, and synonyms.
- Archive #11 - dead links, voting for collaborations, GA candidates, and the FAC for Iguanodon.
- Archive #12 - Archaeopteryx FAC, Thescelosaurus FAC, cladograms and the new Portal:Dinosaurs.
- Archive #13 - preoccupied names, popular culture sections, taxobox formatting, and terminology for geological ages/stages.
- Archive #14 - handling of monospecific genera, species redirects, Portal:Dinosaurs FPC, dinosaur anatomy, WP:TOL banner unification proposal, and geographic categorization.
- Archive #15 - 0.7 version articles, project focus, FAC of Daspletosaurus, article assessment, fictional dinosaurs, and Portal:Dinosaurs becoming featured.
- Archive #16 - FAC of Deinonychus, and the debate surrounding Specimens of Tyrannosaurus.
- Archive #17 - Discussion of "in popular culture" articles, 1st part of FAC of Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, FAC of Majungasaurus, and article openings.
- Archive #18 - Citizendium dinosaur articles, FAC discussion, Majungasaurus featured, proposal for WP:DINO members to review an article before sending to FAC, and FAC of Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.
- Archive #19 - Allosaurus featured, more FA's and lots of debate. The usual. ;)
- Archive #20 -
- Archive #21 - 2008
- Archive #22 - 2009
Needs some sources, if anyone has any which discuss his role in paleontology. Gotta run. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Pakistan's dinosaurs?
About one month ago, I ask about whether Pakistan's dinosaurs were from Indian-Madagascar or Asia. Dinoguy2 answered that west Pakistan is on the Iranian plate, not Indian plate.
However, I remember that Vitakridrinda is also from Pakistan, fossils found in Vitakri Member of the Pab Formation. That's interesting because Abelisaurs were distributed on southern continents in Late Cretaceous, no one found in Asia. Besides, fossils of Balochisaurus, Brohisaurus, Khetranisaurus, Marisaurus, Pakisaurus, Sulaimanisaurus, Baurusuchus, Pabwehshi were also from Pab Formation, the last two were Notosuchia, Notosuchia were also distributed on southern continents. Does it show that Pab Formation's fauna were part of Gondwana fauna, and the above dinosaurs should move to Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar?
hoseumou 12:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Important WikiProject Notice
 | Project Activity
- Please Confirm your WikiProject's Activity by changing the status from "Unknown" to "Yes" on this page, this is to assist the Coordinators of WikiProject Animals update the directory listing on the WikiProject Council Directory. If your project is NOT updated within 1 (one) week of this notice it will be assumed the project is inactive and the project page will be tagged as such. If you have any concerns please contact me on my talk page. ZooPro 04:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
- I've taken the liberty of checking "yes" for WP:DINO. WP:Pterosaurs looks inactive from the talk page, so I didn't change its status. J. Spencer (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Image verifiability
I remember this issue was discussed several years ago I think in regards to a dinosaur image but I cant find the relevent discussion now. A question of verifiability has been raised regarding images of fossils at Fossil, please take a moment and comment on the subject [[1]] as the outcome could easily strip images from many of the dinosaur and other extinct taxa articles . The case being made by the user is " it was a photo of an insect claimed to be fossilized in Baltic amber. Baltic amber was apparently only formed during the Eocene, which can in principle be verified, but we would still need to rely on a Wikipedian who says this is Baltic amber and not another type. So as far as I can see, it boils down to OR" --Kevmin (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the problem arises when it comes to self-found fossils. When the pictures are taken in museums, the subjects are verified by default. FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not black-or-white, I know an academic paleontologist who uploads some of his pics. --Philcha (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Protoavis and the transference of articles
As some know, I kinda sort of retired from Wikipedia to maintain a separate project that is palaeontologically focused. Of course, Wikipedia is like an addiction that can't be broken easily ;). I've worked on various projects, and I am wondering if it would be possible to transfer them to Wikipedia. An example can be seen with a substantially expanded article on Protoavis that could make a GA (or FA, hopefully). The original article can be accessed here. This message has also been posted at the Palaeontology Wikiproject talkpage. All comments and/or criticisms are welcome! --Spotty 11222 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
How's it going guys?
Hey it's Spawn Man. Long time now write - thought I'd pop by and see how everyone was going? Any more FAs? I haven't been on Wikipedia in AGES! Hope everyone is well. I can see a few of the old gang are still hard at it. Cheers guys, drop me an email some time. : ) 130.123.192.23 (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)