Talk:Ichthyovenator

Anatomical precision

Shouldn't we be using more precise anatomical terms than "back vertebra" and "breast bone" and "back two ribs"? Save that stuff for simple.wikipedia.org, in my opinion. 184.98.98.158 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Better InfoBox Image

The current image seems quite unscientific, heck it doesn't even have the iconic Spinosaurid mouth! Shouldn't we get the owner of the image to upload a better version? Mjmannella (talk) 6:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• On the subject of images, PaleoGeekSquared, given that we only know the feet of Spinosaurus, Ichthyovenator should probably be depicted with a forwards facing hallux as well. I think the restoration (and skeletal silhouette) can be fixed by simply painting the hallux out on the right leg. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I never realised that we have hardly any foot bones from spinosaurs, looking at the Jaime skeletals I see only a pedal ungual from Baryonyx and one phalanx from Suchomimus. Shows just how fragmentary this clade really is. Anyways, fixed the hallux on both images. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, it seems the only evidence we have is the foot of Spinosaurus here[1], and tracks form Spain, both which show the hallux touching the ground and facing more forwards than most theropods (I believe). So that should probably be the default assumption for spinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just saw this photo on Commons[2], is it the holotype or a cast? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on the cracks, discolouration, and textures consistent with those of the fossil photos in its description paper, it appears to be the real holotype, FunkMonk. Conveniently, the image also includes a skeletal illustrating some of the newer material! Which I may be able to use as a guideline to update my own skeletal currently on the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I wonder why it's in Paris? Isn't the specimen number for an Asian museum? FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, comparing it with photos of the holotype from the paper once more, I've just noticed there's some dark patches and discolouration on the neural spines that isn't evident on the Paris museum image. So it's probably not the holotype, which explains the inconsistency you just pointed out with the specimen number, FunkMonk. Either way, it's still a very useful image! So thanks for bringing attention to it. I'll add it as I start expanding this for GAN while I wait for Siamosaurus to get reviewed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• This free photo of a mount on Flickr looks pretty cool:[3] Not sure how we missed it, but it's unlabelled after all. There are also other specimens from Laos without captions in that album. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Nice to get a free photo including the rest of the remains. Unfortunately the four distalmost tail vertebrae aren't in the most up to date arrangement, so perhaps they could be cropped out and I can upload a second version of the image with those bones by themselves? - The unlabeled specimens appear to be of Tangvayosaurus and an indeterminate iguanodontian (both from the Gres Superieurs Formation), and Phuwiangosaurus from the Sao Khua Formation. I'll have to take a closer look through Kumiko's albums, there's lots of really useful images, including an even better one of that Baryonyx mount![4]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately the Baryonyx is very dark and blurry up close, but I'll see what can be done in Photoshop... I also made a section for unidentified photos from the expo here:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, I probably should've checked to see if you'd uploaded it first! [6][7] - anyways, did some edits to the Baryonyx mount photo but I'm not sure it's good enough for the taxobox yet? The other image still looks sharper and clearer overall. But added this one to the article in the history section anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, maybe I'll try to desaturate it a bit, because photos often get more saturated when one turns up brightness. As for cropping the tail in the Ichthyovenator, I wonder whether the configuration is (or even can be) set in stone? A bit of a shame to lose the vertebrae. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised that, so just extracted them into a separate image so they wouldn't go to waste, the article's looking better illustrated than ever I must say! - According to what Allain told me and what we know from Spinosaurus now, the mount's arrangement doesn't seem very likely. I've noticed you can also tell this by the width of the neural spines and the size of the transverse processes (note how both these features are more inconsistent in the mount, decreasing and then increasing again[8] compared to the arrangement in the Paris skeletal [9]). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, who would have known Ichthyovenator would become such a popular museum exhibit, and that we would get so many photos of it? You are certainly prepared for when the rest of the postcrania is described. Let's hope for cranial material! FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ichthyovenator/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, I'll take this guy, always seemed strange to me! FunkMonk (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing! Feels good to be back working on articles again. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Mortimer hypothesized in 2017 that Ichthyovenator may not have been a spinosaurid at all, instead possibly being a sail-backed carcharodontosaurid dinosaur" The end of Mortimer's entry says this, though, which I think makes that claim less definite: "I'd put it in Orionides incertae sedis for now, though given the information in Allain's abstract, it will probably end up being spinosaurid once the new material is described and coded."

Added that part, seems I'd forgotten to do a checkup on the source for that previously added statement. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• It seems Aptian, basal, and Barremian are duplinked.

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the skeletal should specify it excludes the later found parts of the holotype?

Done, hopefully I'll be able to update it to include some of that material soon, based on the Paris museum image. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Those images also seem to show all the sacral centra intact, but the text says some of them have eroded?

Yeah, I noticed that, it appears they've been reconstructed, which I've also clarified in the caption. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "and the Chinese species "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis in 2009." Remove link and state it may be synonymous with the former?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Tangvayosaurus hoffeti" If you go with full binomials, why only link the generic names? Same goes for some other taxa mentioned.

Hmm, I also did this at Cristatusaurus and Oxalaia, and the same can be seen in Kentrosaurus. I think it stems from a discussion on a talk page or GA review but I can't seem to find it.

• You only give full binomials under paleoecology, I think it would be best to be consistent throughout the article.

Removed the species names, which should take care of the above suggestion as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "traits all shared with Baryonyx, Suchomimus, Sigilmassasaurus,[5] and Vallibonavenatrix." Maybe add "shared with the spinosaurids".

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link fossil trackway at trackway?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The type dorsal rib" I think this would be confusing, why not just "single known dorsal rib" or similar?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "both of which had singular sails" Wouldn't "continuous sails" or something be more accurate?

True, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Baryonyx is linked at third instead of first mention in the article body.

Fixed, must've resulted from copyediting. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "which only showed the beginnings of a sail" This kind of implies that Baryonyx was somehow bound to get a sail, maybe imply that it was just less developed instead?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "creating a sudden hiatus" In what, the process/profile? Maybe it could be explained more clearly.

Added "in the profile of the sail". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "d towards the front of the animal." Maybe specify "front of the animal's back? Because it seems evident they stopped by the neck.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "lateral processes" Processes on the sides maybe, to make it easier to understand?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "he 92-centimetre (36 in) ilium" Maybe say ilium of the pelvis, I wonder if most people know the word?

Added, I'd say its one of the more generally known terms when it comes to anatomy so it should be ok. Linked it as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "than with any other known" Than in?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "the lower end of the pubis has an L-shape, resembling that of Baryonyx. The pubic apron (expanded lower end of the pubis) features a large pubic foramen." The surrounding text is past tense, why present tense here? Maybe look for more such inconsistencies.

Fixed and also corrected a few other sentences in present tense. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "with unknown regions such as the skull" Say "head" maybe, since you don't actually show the skull?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "named from continent" From the?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "(the latter may represent the same animal as Siamosaurus[9][10])" Maybe this should just be moved up tot he history section?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 2019, Spanish palaeontologist Elisabete Malafaia and colleagues also suggested a complex biogeographical pattern for spinosaurs during the Early Cretaceous, based on anatomical similarities between Ichthyovenator and Vallibonavenatrix" Maybe you should have a paragraph after the cladogram that go into detail about paleobiogeography? Now the classification section is a bit all over the place in that regard, and biogeography is glossed over. I also did a section on that in Baryonyx.

Moved all of the biogeographical info down to palaeoecology (that section was looking a bit paltry anyways) and added some more information on that from Siamosaurus. Hope it looks better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Irritator is only linked in the cladogram.

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "led many palaeontologists to believe that spinosaurids were largely piscivorous" Maybe mention again here in parenthesis (as implied by Ichthyovenator's name) or something?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "A more generalist diet for spinosaurs has also been proposed, based on fossil evidence including a Baryonyx specimen found with Iguanodon bones in its stomach cavity, and an Irritator individual known to have eaten a pterosaur." Then you should mention the fish scales found with Baryonyx too then, because now it reads as if the only evidence of spinosaurid piscivory is the shape of their skulls.

Added, as well as a mention of that Onchopristis vertebra found with the Spinosaurus snout. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "and an Irritator individual known to have eaten a pterosaur." This makes it seem like pterosaur bones were found in Irritator's stomach cavity or something, I think it should just state that a tooth has been found in a pterosaur bone.

Done.

• "have been instead been" Double been.

Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "their dense bone histology" Isn't histology the study of this, though?

Replaced with "the high density of their limb bones". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• " was observed in Spinosaurus aegypticacus" Full binomial here, unlike all other genera mentioned earlier.

Removed specific name. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "as well as the rest of the skeleton from the same individual" Wasn't it just further vertebrae, though?

There was a pubis as well, so replaced with "as more vertebrae (backbones) and a pubic bone the same individual." to be more specific. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "analyses place as" Place it as?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Though I can see why you would show part of another Asian spinosaur under classification, that vertebra doesn't really add much information, I wonder if maybe you should show a more complete spinosaur skeleton there to give readers a better idea of how it would look? Like for example this Irritator mount, as it seems to be the closest relation with a good reconstruction:[10]

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looking good! I only noticed one last thing, which is that some years are linked, such as 1986, while most are not. But I'll promote this once you reply, at this rate you'll be done with the Spinosauridae before there's a cure for COVID-19! FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully so! Thanks for reviewing yet another one of my spinosaur nominations. I think I'm ready to take this one to FAC as well. - As for your comment, usually I only link years in which taxa were named, since content related to research history on those articles is rather lacking until more recent ones. Just linked 2009 as well since that's when "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis was reassigned as a spinosaur, will be adding that onto the 2009 in paleontology article later. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Fossil spinal column Ichthyovenator

• ... that the spinosaurid dinosaur Ichthyovenator (fossils pictured) had two sails on its back? Source: "It is very low compared with the posterior dorsal and other sacral neural spines, and is responsible of the sinusoidal shape of the reconstructed sail of Ichthyovenator (Figs. 2and 6). Thus, the latter could be subdivided into a sacral sail including sacral vertebrae S2 to S5 and the first two caudal vertebrae, and a tall dorsal sail including at least dorsal vertebrae D12 and D13." (Allain et al. (2012):[11])

• Reviewed: 145th Street station
• Comment: Passed GA review a week ago, so hopefully on time! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by PaleoGeekSquared (talk). Self-nominated at 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I verified the source and time of GA review. It was a very enjoyable read, thank you. Maleschreiber (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this. We need an inline cite for the hook fact, meaning right after the sentence in which the hook fact appears. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Added inline citation, Yoninah, and also replaced the image with a more up-to-date version. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Can't say I like this new image at thumbnail size, though. Restoring tick. Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, forgot it's much longer than the previous one. Switched it out for another image, would this work better, Yoninah? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 06:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's pretty dark and hard to make out at thumbnail size. We can run it without an image. Yoninah (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Junk links?

Why do we have a "featured article" with links like 2012? This goes against WP:EGG and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Was someone asleep when they reviewed this? Or is MoS compliance no longer considered important in FA? --84.64.237.205 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does not link to the year 2012, but 2012 in archosaur paleontology (as you probably know since you looked at the wikitext to place it here), since it's relevant to the naming and description of the animal. Most dinosaur GAs and FAs have those links, you're free to check. But we of course don't do that for every single year mentioned either, only those relevant to the taxon. This doesn't even go against WP:EGG or MOS:UNLINKDATES by any means, the latter even notes "Dates should be linked only when they are relevant to the subject", which is the case here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does not link to the year 2012, and that's WP:EGG right there. How is it "relevant to the naming and description of the animal"? --84.64.237.205 (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you even know what you are talking about? Of course the article doesn't link to the article about the year "2012", but to another article called "2012 in archosaur paleontology", and these two things are totally different. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 11:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've established that. Have you looked at WP:EGG at all? That might be a good place to start. Then you can start on How is it "relevant to the naming and description of the animal"? Or just remove these distracting and useless links, per WP:OVERLINK, which would be my preference. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Then just remove the links since you keep insisting, though I'll still ping PaleoGeekSquared since he is the main author of the article, and knows more about this stuff. Also, people at WP:DINO and WP:PAL are well aware of these links, and tend to just leave them how they are, and as mentioned by PaleoGeek above, many dinosaur FAs and GAs have these types of links, so removing them might just be a waste of time. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:EGG notes "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense.", it may not link to 2012, but it is relevant to the description of the animal since those articles are largely lists of named archosaur taxa during that year and information about said nomenclatural acts. And if you'd checked WP:OVERLINK, you would also see this particular section giving an extremely similar example "1787 [1787 in science] might be linked from a passage discussing a particular development in the metric system which occurred in that year." - Removing them does more harm than good and they're not unnecessarily distracting either. I agree with JurassicClassic that it would also be a rather big waste of time for editors who could instead deal with actual problematic MOS issues. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Goodness. JurassicClassic767, it's a shame you have so little faith in your fellow dinosaur editors' ability to edit correctly. Maybe we should bring in a peer review process, to screen out poorly constructed articles. We could call it, let's see, what about "Featured Article"? PaleoGeekSquared, for the third time, How is it "relevant to the naming and description of the animal?" Still patiently waiting for your answer. I don't need you to explain or read aloud the MoS guidance I referred you to, I don't need you to advise me on better uses of my time, but I do need you to tell me why this link is vital to the article. I see it was queried at FAC too. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

By little faith what do you mean? As for your suggestion of a peer review, Ichthyovenator should be requested for a reassessment because once an article has reached FA, it doesn't need to be peer reviewed, this is because it may have already went through one (which is the most common way), or through an extensive GA review. Also, such links don't even make an article poorly constructed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This IP sure knows a lot about the inner workings of Wikipedia and the dinosaur project, so hardly a random drive-by comment? Anyhow, I'm not sure how those links hurt, no one has ever complained about them at FAC, and there has been quite a few. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not being sure how the links hurt is not a criterion for keeping them, and as I observed earlier, this was queried at FAC. Links should only be used where they give some benefit to the reader. I guess if there was a benefit to the reader, it would be easy to point out what it was. When folks resort to ad hominems, it's often a sign they have no better arguments. Does anyone have any actual reason for keeping them, or is it ok if I remove them again? --84.64.237.205 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you've already resorted to such condescending comments earlier in the conversation; "Goodness. JurassicClassic767, it's a shame you have so little faith in your fellow dinosaur editors' ability to edit correctly.", but that's besides the point. Did you read what I wrote in my comment at 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)? You seem to have dismissed/ignored everything I pointed out and keep insisting that I repeat myself on why these links have a valid reason to be there and do not even go against MOS compliance. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

IP, you've clearly made up your mind that the links are junk and no amount of reasoning can sway you. Linking to the 2012 article for paleontology enhances understanding of the discovery and naming of the genus by placing it in the context of contemporary literature. I can see an argument, however, for removing it from the infobox where the contextual value is decreased. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)