Jump to content

Talk:Anzu wyliei

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoration

[edit]

Apart from the gigantic eye, anything wrong with this image? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks decent enough to me. Prioryman (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The eye at least needs to be made smaller, it should fit within the sclerotic ring, as seen in the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Modified it. Also made the nostril smaller. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I question the accuracy of some aspects of the drawing, especially the feathers. For example, compare to two reliable sources: National Geographic and Science Magazine. Is this drawing simply a Wikipedia user imagining what it would look like? I'm not arguing that the image should be removed, just modified or replaced with something more similar to what can be seen in a reliable source perhaps. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

accuracy wise those restorations are pretty bad. The arrangement of feathers seems to have been intentionally made inaccurate in the hands in order that the claws and digits would be more visible, a very unlikely life arrangement. Closed vaned pen nacreous feathers are also very unlikely for such a large flightless form unless for display, in which case they'd be much larger and strikingly patterned. The current wiki image is less technically proficient but more scientifically accurate than the official press release images which are not free to use anyway. One problem with wiki is that when it comes to subjects like this, reliable sources often do not care much about accurate life restorations as they are focused on comparative skeletal anatomy. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the wings especially are horrible on those two "official" images, and I'd even question the artistic values of the first one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a link to "Scott Hartmann" which the artist mentions this was based on? And does Scott Harmann have any expertise in these matters? 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hartmann's work may be admired here: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/ I presume this was based on Scott's skeletal reconstruction, though and he can't be blamed for the fundamental mistakes made in these images. In the National Geographic one the claws are pointing to the outside, which was anatomically impossible, this confusion likely also explaining why the wing is at the outside on the left arm and at the inside on the right arm! In both images the primaries are attached no lower than the metacarpals, while they were probably attached to the second finger as well. I fear Dinoguy2 is very charitable in suggesting this was intentional ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hartman's skeletals are used in the very paper[1] describing this taxon, so yes, he does have expertise on these matters. "... while Scott Hartman produced the skull and skeletal reconstructions that constitute Figures 2A, 4A, and 5A." FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so Hartmann appears to have expertise. Here is the concern I have. Hartmann's drawing, on which the drawing in the Wikipedia article is based, does not show the feathers. So it seems to me that the Wikipedia image is based on a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of how the creature would look. Generally, when Wikipedia must choose between a Wikipedia editor's expertise vs. a reliable source, the reliable source is almost always the choice (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc.). Now, I realize the National Geographic and Science magazine images are not available, but if someone drew an image based on those sources, why would that not be preferred? The current image is used simply because no other image is available. And I understand that editors here have expressed opinions about the various images, and no offense to those editors, but again we are talking about reliable sources compared to the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Sadly, Wikipedia does not have any way to determine the expertise of its editors unless they have published in reliable sources. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows the exact feather arrangement, but since related species (see for example Caudipteryx and Similicaudipteryx, the closest relatives with known wing feather arrangement, not to mention all other known wing arrangements) all have the primary wing feathers attached to the second finger, it is pretty much certain that this animal did too. Yet those two images you linked do not show this arrangement, but the one we have does, so it is inherently more accurate, based on sources that describe these related fossils. The exact shape and size of these feathers is anyone's guess, but the way they attach is not. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again I certainly mean no offense, and I've had my own expertise challenged by uninformed editors on several occasions. But that is a Wikipedia editor's opinion, rather than opinion from a reliable source. You may be an expert in these matters, but we have no way of knowing that. That's one the greatest challenges of Wikipedia: there is no recognition of the expertise of one editor over another's expertise. I know we are stuck with the current image for now, and my only concern is how to proceed if someone decides to draw another one, or if another one from a reliable source becomes available. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone else draws a, let's say, a nicer looking one, great, but it would still have to be anatomically correct, unlike those two press release images. Only then would we replace this one. There are a few things that have been established in scientific papers, such as wing structure and hand posture, that we cannot interpret differently from what the papers actually say. Even professional restorations often have inaccuracies. Here is Scott Hartman's restoration of another oviraptorosaur, as you can see, the primary wing feathers attach to the second finger, not the wrist, as in the press images: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/art/2dcpzgwx5mp38ubr8aof2w280tedo7 In that sense, our free image looks more like his than those do. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So who decides what is "anatomically correct"? My point here is not to stir up an argument between you and me (or anyone for that matter). As I said, I've had my expertise smacked down on a few occasions. But Wikipedia says editors' opinions are to be equally weighted. It's a moot point right now because there is no other image. I was just struck by the disparity in the images. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, published sources do. If the scientific sources say that all known fossils with wings have the primary feathers on their second fingers, enforcing this is not our original interpretation. I understand your concern, and why it is hard to take at face value, but you don't have to. You can look at the papers. You could argue that since fossil feathers are not known for this exact species, we do not know their arrangement. Basing wings on the closest related species with wings is hardly original research, compared to inventing completely unknown/fictional and novel wing arrangements (as in the press images). FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if I am an uninformed editor and I look at the images and see that they are quite different, whose interpretation of the published sources do we use: mine or yours? 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there is no need to interpret. We have the scientific papers that describe the closest related feathered species, Caudipteryx and Similicaudipteryx[2], among all other theropods with wings. Note that other discrepancies are due to artistic license, not science. I'm only talking about wings here, which is the main problem with the press release images. The rest of them is pretty similar anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop this issue because it's not worth dealing with for now, but in fact someone would do some interpretation. If two editors disagree about the image, they are each interpreting. But as a I said, a moot point for now. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well again, there's nothing to interpret if we look at the sources. The 1998 description and diagnosis of Caudipteryx says "arms with remiges attached to the second digit" and "At least fourteen remiges are attached to the second metacarpal, phalanx II-1, and the base of phalanx II-2 of NGMC 97-4-A (Fig. 8a)." Anyone who does not draw the remiges attached on the second finger is making an inaccurate restoration. It's as simple as that. This goes for its relatives as well, where wings are not preserved. And this makes the press release images anatomically inaccurate.FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I'll not belabor the issue of image accuracy, but yes in fact if I want one image and you want another one, we are each interpreting and the remaining issue is whose interpretation is accepted in the article. That's a problem with Wikipedia, but not one we are going to solve here. Thanks for you comments. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the difference is that I have sources to back up my "claim". That's how Wikipedia works. I'm not "interpreting" the source, I'm citing it. You cannot interpret "the remiges attach to the second digit" in any other way. I know I'm ant-fucking, but I don't want to leave any ambiguities. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except I can argue that I interpret it differently. There is always a matter of interpretation when editors disagree on Wikipedia. But as I said, we're not going to solve that problem here. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then how do you interpret it differently? I'm not trying to be annoying, it's just for the sake of example. You can find these scientific papers through a Google search. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing that I do interpret it differently or that I don't. I'm saying that if an editor -- not necessarily me -- wants a different image, he/she can argue a different interpretation. But this has devolved into an academic discussion of a problem with Wikipedia rather than a problem with the image. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making examples. If some editor does what you suggest, I'll direct them to the sources that state what I cited above. Then it is up to that editor to find sources that contradict those papers, since there is nothing present in them with room for interpretation. They're pretty clear on wing feather attachment. But if you for example stated the wings were too long on our drawing, I'd have no source to redeem it, because Caudipteryx and relatives did not have wings that long. If I then say "it's artistic license", you'd have a point in stating that interpretation is debatable. Same for the tail feather arrangement, and the long feathers on the neck. Based on relatives, it would seem the Science image has the most probable tail feathers, with the whole "fan" arrangement being known from a few taxa. It looks like it is actually based directly on Caudipteryx. If someone drew a new Anzu with correct wings and a tail fan, I'd support the replacement of the old one, for example. But we could also just modify the old one to have it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I will have to have a friendly agreement to disagree on one point. When two editors differ on Wikipedia, there can always be a different interpretation of the facts. And Wikipedia does not officially recognize that editor A has any more expertise in interpreting the facts than editor B. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the sources are always what counts, not our interpretations or opinions, Wiki policy says that much. In any case, let's see what comes along, wouldn't exactly be a problem if someone decided to make a new restoration for us, the one we have is really old, from long before the animal was even named. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is unwise of me to stir this up again, but I feel that this a good occasion to point out the principles that should be applied here. Indeed, Wikipedia should follow reliable sources. And it's true that editors can differ in opinion. However, they can also differ in opinion about what is a reliable source in the first place. Magazines, no matter how well read or reputable, never possess a "general reliability" in that anything they publish is to be deemed correct, irrespective of actual content. Information on we can all agree that it is incorrect, does not constitute a reliable source. Therefore we may for each particular case seek consensus, between editors, on what is reliable and once such consensus is reached, it suffices as long as it holds. So, it is not valid to argue "Yes, we all know this image is full of error but because it appears in National Geographic we should still imitate it against our better judgement". As an aside, I may emphasise that magazines, institutions and individual paleontologists all work under a very tight budget, that art, created by manual labour, is inherently expensive and that therefore market forces dictate that cheap art, in the economic, scientific and aesthetic sense, will be selected as long as the general public "buys" it.--MWAK (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are well taken. But, of course, a more elegant solution would be for Wikipedia to allow professionals with identified credentials to exert some (but not total) authority in their areas of expertise. If that were the case, editors like FunkMonk who seems to have an understanding of these matters, wouldn't have to fight as many useless battles to keep some semblance of accuracy in an article. But the powers that be (read that Jimbo) will always oppose that because it would limit their own influence, and because it would put a little more emphasis on quality of articles rather than sheer volume. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming redirects

[edit]

I've created incoming redirects at Chicken from hell, Chicken from Hell, and Chicken From Hell due to the use of variations of the term the "chicken from hell" in the media. Is the use of "the chicken from hell" (with the word "the" inside the quotation marks) common enough in the media to warrant creating the same redirects but with the word "the" in front of them? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't hurt, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nickname is extremely widely mentioned by reliable sources, yet the user Abductive wants to remove it for some unclear reason. For a precedent where mention of a palaeontologist's informal nicknames for a dinosaur passed into a FAC, see Nigersaurus. "Nigersaurus was dubbed a "Mesozoic cow" in the press, and Sereno stressed that it was the most unusual dinosaur he had ever seen. He likened its physical appearance to Darth Vader and a vacuum cleaner, and compared its tooth shear with a conveyor belt and sharpened piano keys.[1]" If such, admittedly silly, hyperbole passes FAC, it passes here too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first part is irrelevant. Wikipedia reflects everything published in reliable sources, which is notable and relevant to a subject. In this case, we cannot ignore something that is widely reported, and credited directly to the scientists. Wikipedia is not a research journal. And please quit removing stuff from FAs which has gone through several reviews uncontested. Your attempt at proving a point[3] is getting disruptive, and that is against Wikipedia policy[4], unlike including this stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disruption, just edits you disagree with because you've got your dander up. Abductive (reasoning) 19:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple experienced FAC reviewers accept it, I need to see much better arguments from your side if it is to be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "chicken from hell" thing seems to be a one-off joke that got out of hand. Media needs a reason to make people interested in a new caenagnathid by making it seem extreme. Most people would not care about this find without that hook. But, it's in verifiable sources and people may be searching based on it, so it should at least stay until the hype machine is over tomorrow. People might actually learn something from this page, unlike 99% of current click-bait "news" reports. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the redirects staying in place. Mentioning this garbage in the text of the article is bad. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that texts that are primarily intended to be distributed to the general public, are not "primary sources". So, if I would possess myself of Sereno's notebook containing a description of Dinosaur X, I would not be allowed to enter this information in a Wikipedia article. But if Sereno published exactly the same information in an article, we may refer to it. Whether the description is bone-dry or more jocular in nature, is of no matter :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're disrupting a lot of articles I have on my watchlist with your crusade there, so expect to be mass reverted if they are as unhelpful as here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disruption, just edits you disagree with because you've got your dander up. Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple experienced FAC reviewers accept it, I need to see much better arguments from your side if it is to be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Joyce, C. (2013-11-25). "'Mesozoic Cow' Rises from the Sahara Desert". NPR. Retrieved 2007-11-16.

Chicken from Hell - use in article page

[edit]

Since it appears that multiple reliable sources independent of the discoverers (and by extension, independent of other entities that stand to benefit from the use of the term) are using "chicken from hell" or some variant, it's within policy to include it in the article for now. Whether it will be within policy/guideline to use the term a year from now will depend on whether the use of the term is "merely news" or if it is of lasting significance. We can't know that for awhile yet.

There is another question, one that is more based on editorial judgement than policy/guideline: SHOULD we use the term in the article, at least for now?

The fact that it is a likely search term in the coming days and weeks is a strong reason to have a redirect with the term, and having a redirect with the term is a strong reason to have the term mentioned in the article. Whether that holds true a few months from now, only time will tell. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should mention that the press/describers referred to it as such when it was announced. We, as in the article, should not call it by that name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The fact that this is popularly known by such a stupid officially sanctioned name is not our problem. It's part of the history of discovery whether we like it or not and belongs in that section. It seems ridiculous trash news now, but in 100 years it will be an interesting cultural/historical artifact just as much as those listed in any dinosaur article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that the scientists actually wanted to call the animal "chicken from hell" in Latin or Greek but couldn't make it work. So if it hadn't been for a translation problem, we'd have been talking about Pullus exinferis or something like that as an actual species name. Prioryman (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pullus has been preoccupied by, surprise, surprise, a beetle. In Greek you'd get something like "Katagaidolektroideus". While those demons have such snappy names :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and was thus the largest known from North America"

[edit]

Largest known what? Species? Dinosaur? Oviraptor? ... --BjKa (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anzu wyliei → Anzu (dinosaur) – Typically, monotypic genera are placed at the genus name. In this case, the genus is preoccupied by a disambiguation. Incoming redirect of Anzu (dinosaur) seems like a fitting destination. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Dinosaurs has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the guidelines for monotypic taxa when the genus name is ambiguous/disambiguated is to place the article at the species level with the disambiguated genus title as a redirect to that article.--Kevmin § 16:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA has said to use the binomial as a form of natural disambiguation when a monotypic genus name is ambiguous since 2016. There was a little bit of discussion about ambiguous monotypic genera at WikiProject Dinosaurs in 2015 with at least one article moved to the binomial title (most of that discussion is about titling by genus/binomial in general). There was another discussion in late 2017/early 2018 more specifically about ambiguous monotypic genus names that resulted in all such articles being moved to the binomial title (except for Yi (dinosaur), where the binomial is still ambiguous). Plantdrew (talk)
  • Oppose per aforementioned reasons; the page currently follows the standard format for monotypic genera with ambiguous genus names. If another species of Anzu happens to be named in the future, then "Anzu (dinosaur)" would be the appropriate page title. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anzu_wyliei&oldid=1209195372"