Talk:Dromiceiomimus

qwantz

Any chance of a dinoasur comics mention?

I don't think that's really appropriate here... it's certiankly noteworthy to mention this genus on the qwantz page, since Dromiceiomimus is very important to the topic of qwantz. qwantz, however, is not very important at all to the topic of Dromiceiomimus. (I'm a big qwantz fan, for the record... and that Dresden Codak guest comic was killer :D ) Dinoguy2 13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Pop culture relevance sections are common practice here, at least where I've seen. Being bold and adding it: feel free to remove if there's a big to do, of course.--69.203.22.242 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, 69: it was only a single sentence, and it didn't really state why the depiction in the comic is so important to the genus Dromiceiomimus. An entire section dedicated to a single sentence seems like overkill. You can revert my edit, but I'd like to see either no section, or a whole paragraph dedicated to this, and why it's important: is it notable? Have various sources mentioned it? I'm open to including this, but let's make it notable. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this: 'The fictional character Dromiceiomimus, named for her species, appears in almost every episode of the multi-award winning Dinosaur Comics.'

Dinosaur Comics is a significant enough series to be mentioned; it's won awards and been printed. It's certainly got enough fans to expect traffic on this page reading about the species when we're they're supposed to be working. The fact that no other pop culture references have been found yet is no reason to ignore this one.Lindsay40k (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia style guide has clearcut rationale for including any pop culture references. How important is Dinosaur comics to the subject of Dromeiciomimus? What further information can people learn about Dromeiciomimus by being directed to Dinosaur Comics? If the only possible answer is "they can learn Dromeiciomimus is present in Dinosaur Comics", it is not noteworthy. If I'm missing somethnig important, please correct me.

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Handling trivia, specifically the section on Connective trivia. Read this carefully. I would argue that the connection between Dromeiciomimus and Dinosaur Comics is the second type of connective trivia. It it relevant to the subject of Dinosaur Comics but not relevant to the topic of Dromeiciomimus.Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just came here from Dinosaur Comics whilst procrastinating from my stupid LFEU essay in case there was some relevant information (and also to find out the correct pronounciation of dromiceiomimus). I'd never heard of this dinosaur before...it's not a very "popular" one (like say Raptors or a T-Rex) outside of Dinosaur Comics, and so I think it would be sensible to include a reference to it on here. Wowbagger2004 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That logic is a little backwards isn't it? If this dinosaur is not well known, there should be a link to it on the Dinosaur Comics page. And there is. So, people reading about Dinosaur Comics who ask, "hat the heck is a Dromiceiomimus? How do I pronounce that?" can come to this page for more information. Job done ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dinoguy2, the guideline you note on connective trivia uses an example that the "high visibility" of a subject can warrant it important to the other subject. I would argue that the high visibility of the character Dromiceiomimus from Dinosaur Comics should warrant her mention in the article on the species Dromiceiomimus. Furthermore, both the pages on Utahraptor and Tyrannosaurus Rex link to Dinosaur Comics, despite the fact that both Dinosaurs are probably more well known to the general public without the comic. (though I see you've debated Utahraptor as well :) ) I'm not one to engage in edit wars, so I'll leave it alone, but I'd like you to reconsider your stance. Just because Dinosaur Comics is not about Dromiceiomimus does not mean it did not popularize the species. -TzeraFNX--69.67.114.174 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the only reason people know Dromeiciomimus even existed is because of Dinosaur Comics. --1sneakers6 (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunk?

From here[1]: " In 1972 two ornithomimids were described as the new genus Dromiceiomimus (meaning 'emu mimic') but in 2004 it was shown that these specimens actually belonged to O. edmontonicus (Russell 1972, Makovicky et al. 2004)." FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Thomas Holtz Dinosaur book says the same. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Vertebrae

I will again make Dromiceiomimus because Dromi has 9 neck vertebrae, and Ornithomimus - 10. Ornithomimus article says that D. is a junior synonym, however both d. and o. are the same size, and legs and eyes of Dromiceiomimus are longer and larger! John Troodon(talk)

That would be WP:OR. Abyssal (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's OR. Have you done a thorough study to determine that he number of vertebrae is not variable and has been correctly reported for both forms? MMartyniuk (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how brevitertius got sunk into edmontonicus when the latter name is seven years younger. J. Spencer (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A violation of priority? In dinosaur paleontology? *ironic expression of shock* ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)