Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 8

Deinocheirus article

I discovered this great little article today, and fiddled with it a bit. With a little bit more work, it's it'll be almost perfect. I'd really like an image for it though - anyone got a photo of those arms or now someone who'd donate one?

(I really don't want to have to draw them...) John.Conway 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega-Dino-Meltdown!

Well everyone, because Firsfron decided to pull out of supporting Ankylosaurus, 3 articles managed to become our current Dinosaur collaboration!! Ankylosaurus (already a GA), Stegosaurus & Triceratops will all be our collaboration project for the next two weeks. I will be on a wikibreak due to stress & will be editing on Uncyclopedia under the same user name. Contact me there if you want, as I may not check my mail here. Thanks everyone & I hope you'll keep editing & maintaining while I'm gone... Spawn Man 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool on the three-way tie. Sorry you'll be leaving for a while, but Uncyclopedia's cool. Be sure to check out my article on Craspedodon while you're there. Happy editing! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Dino Images

[1] Great galley of oldschool paleo illustrations. I'm sure most, if not all, are public domain, so is there nay problem with using them? I'd love to use the pangolin-style Stegosaurus illustration I finally found!Dinoguy2 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, we can't use these without permission, according to the site's About the Images page. (The images themselves may be public domain, but I guess these are reprinted from the copywritten catalog). However, it says on that page that special permissions may be granted, so it might be worthwhile to write them. You could emphasise the fact that Wikipedia is a free, not-for-profit encyclopedia.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spinosaurus alert!

Hi - Spinosaurus has come in for some 'interesting' and massive editing (two edits to date by Violent J). I have no time to sort it out today and, anyway, feel it's more appropriate if someone with more specialised knowledge than me were to do so. - Ballista 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

HappyCamper reverted the edits. I wasn't sure what we could do with them, as they basically re-wrote most of the article without regard to wiki syntax, etc.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking years?

Jerkov has recently been adding links to the years listed in dino taxoboxes. I've always removed these links, as I remember at least one FAC reviewer had said that only full dates should be linked. What's the scoop? I can't find any Wiki policy that says not to link years, though it does seem a little superfluous to me.Dinoguy2 14:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text."[2] Mgiganteus1 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So it's apparent that this Wikiproject will need to decide where it stands. Should we take a vote? To link or not to link?Dinoguy2 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style only recommends that we don't link months and days of the weeks: years are perfectly acceptable, and I think that, at least in the case of the oldest known dinosaurs, we should, simply for a base of reference (ie, "What else was happening in 1677?"). Not to mention that the folks making the year articles will be looking for "What links here". --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur Cards

Several dinosaur articles have references similar to this one--"Williams, P. (1997). Bob Bakker. Dinosaur Cards. Orbis Publishing Ltd. D36044608." Besides the fact that's not properly cited (what is "Bob Bakker", the section title? If so it needs quotation marks.), what is Dinosaur Cards? If it is what it sounds like, some kind of collectable series or card game, I really don't think it's an appropriate reference for an encyclopedia. You might was well cite the back of a toy box. Whether or not the info is accurate, it looks unprofessional, and surely the same info can be found elsewhere. If it's a book, that might be a different story, but there must be something peer-reviewed to replace these with.Dinoguy2 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this on the Tyrannosaurus FAC page: these were Spawn Man's references: they aren't trading cards, but those "Fact file"-type cards. After some lengthy discussions, it was decided more professional-looking references should probably be used.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've popped around to perform my duties during my wikibreak (Dinosaur collaboration etc) & thought I'd pop over here too. The cards are indeed only secondary, if not tertiary sources, only to be used in a pinch & to back up more credible sources. For example, they would be used to cite an uncited article, but if someone put a reference by a known paleontologist's paper, then the dino card would only be used to provide an extra source of that information. The cards are not trading cards, infact they should be called dinopapers, as they are that A4 size. IMHO, leave them on, but definitely back them up with many other refs. Spawn Man 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur collaboration

Just cause I'm not here, doesn't mean I'm not maintaining the collaboration. However, I am saddened to see a huge dip in the productivity, the enthusiasm & nominatinos etc of both the collaboration members & on & of this wikiproject. I'm coming back soon, & it seems to be a good idea too, but you guys should be far more active now that "MR Grumpy" is on a wikibreak. None of the past collaboration articles are good enough to send to FAC yet. Some major enthusiasm needs to be injected into your veins or this project is going to fail once again. Get moving people, I wanna see some improvement before I get back & start thrashing the whip again! Don't make me nominate another FA! Spawn Man 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Spawn. I wouldn't mind another FAC, because I think it does help motivate us. At least, it helps motivate me. There is WP:Dinosaurs activity, but it's mostly on the image review pages right now.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm waiting on my copy of Dinosauria 2nd ed. which I bought off ABEBooks and is being shipped to me here in Oz. Also, I fired off an email for images. Am feeling a bit fatigued and got put in naughty-chair by wife for spending too much time on wikipediaCas Liber 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, I'm not married, or I'd be getting the same treatment by now. For the record, I've added Stegosaurus to peer review. We'll see if we get many suggestions. Probably not; the peer reviews I've done have mostly had few suggestions for improvement.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. I got Dinosauria 2nd ed (man this is full of refs!) and have tried to consolidate Stegosaurus as the next beastie do-able to FAC Cas Liber 04:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Great book huh? The bibliography is probably my favorite part. Keep in mind that most of the chapters were written in 2001-02 even if it was published in 2004. I also recommend getting Glut's Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia and all 4 of its supplements... even though it is pricey (all 5 volumes will probably run you like $400 even if you get them used), it has been an invaluable reference for me since last spring. Sheep81 08:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Year links in taxon authorities

Why is it that whenever the year next to a taxon authority is turned into a link, someone removes the link? What's wrong with linking those years? Jerkov 11:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with linking the years, Jerkov. I don't know why they're being removed. The Manual of Style section on linking years states, "will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?" In the case of dinosaurs discovered from the 1600s to the early 1900s, the answer is probably yes, simply because it's a point of reference of what was happening at that point in history. There's absolutely no reason to link to, say, the United States, as everyone knows what that is. But does everyone know what was happening in 1677? Probably not.--Firsfron of Ronchester 11:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. What about more recent years? Jerkov 12:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is to not link more recent dates, but there's nothing in the MOS that indicates this. It's just my personal preference.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've often removed the years because one or two reviewrs on FACs said the years should not be linked. I guess there's no rule that actually says that, so I'll cut it out.Dinoguy2 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have too, for the same reason. Sheep81 02:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule that says year dates shouldn't be linked, but there's also no rule that says you have to cut it out.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't want to start an edit war or anything. Maybe a vote on whether or not to include them on dino articles?Dinoguy2 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates - List of dinosaurs

I have nominated List of dinosaurs as a featured list, hopefully everyone will gather round to help support it after all my image placing etc. Thanks. Spawn Man 03:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it got featured! Great work everyone.... (Especially me... ;)) Spawn Man 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Very cool. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph Zallinger is still a redlink!!!

Rudolph Zallinger is still a redlink as of today, September 11, 2006!!! -- http://www.yale.edu/peabody/archives/ypmbios/zallinger.html -- (There are apparently also some pages with Rudolf Zallinger) -- Writtenonsand 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So, err, who is he? Soo 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He painted some of the most famous dinosaur illustrations ever. See this, for example. Definitely article-worthy, if we've got time. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Get your arses into action... Where the hell is Sheepy?

The edits on Plateosaurus - Diffs, & Procompsognathus - Diffs, were dismal! Dismal! Let's face it, you lots aren't cut out for this work without the likes of Sheepy. And guess what? He's not here? We should all be ashamed of the minimal amounts of work we've been putting into the collaboration! I'm wasting my time updating it every 2 weeks, as nothing is really done. We might as well all do our own article; it'd be more productive! Get the tempo up people! I don't like being the slave driver, but it's not like you people have anything better to do on here other than edit dino articles? And if you do, removed yourself from the project. We don't need dead weight pulling us down when we've made a promise to get one article featured every month. I'd do the work, but I'm behind the scenes as all my resources & edits are highly critisized. You "paleontologists" need to dust off those masses of books of yours, lock your office or study door for an hour, & make yourselves do at least one paragraph on the selected article. It ain't hard & if we all did one paragraph (even I bet I could find something to write about), then we'd have a featured article at the end of 2 weeks. C'mon guys, get fire wise! Spawn Man 03:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

When you pay us, you can tell us what to do. Until then, shut up. You are not the leader of this project. You are not anyone's boss. The sooner you realise this the better. Soo 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well nobody else seems to be taking the lead? A few pointers. 1) Don't talk to me like that, ever. 2) As you may have noticed, but I doubt it, there is a hidden notice below my above notice stating my rationale. The only reason I said that was to get some action. I've been editing the friggin collaboration every 2 weeks & it take about half an hour. Even that half an hour is a waste of time when nobody edits the articles. Nobody pays me, but I make sure everything is running. I've kept my end of the bargain, why don't you keep yours? 3) You shut up. It's in nobody's interest, especially yours matey, to start getting abrupt with me. I'm simply trying to muster the troops, whether they are mine or not, into action whilst Sheep81's away. Sorry if you feel small & deflated being called useless without him, but at least I can recognise that he, with almost nobody else, is the main scientific intlet here. I suggest you take you blatherings & objections to my crude way of getting things done, &, well, I don't want to be banned. Thanks Soo. You're a swell guy. Spawn Man 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC). P.S. If you fancy a shot at updating all the collaboration, & trying to direct everyone, why don't you have a go mate?

I've decided to also place this post here. I've seen the light & want everyone to have full disclosure into what me & Soo have decided on (Soo will now maintain the Dinosaur collaboration & make sure everyone works on the articles without getting annoyed like I did up there...) For someone who is an admin, your post: "When you pay us, you can tell us what to do. Until then, shut up. You are not the leader of this project. You are not anyone's boss. The sooner you realise this the better. Soo 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)", was surprising & somewhat disappointing. Okay.

1)Since you so awesomely expressed your feelings for me, you are now maintainer of the Dinosaur collaboration. You're right, I'm nobody's boss & you've done way more work than me with your, um, 4 FA's like me? Oh who am I kidding, I'm sure you've got one? Cause you're so much better at mustering people to work on things? Right? Yes, moving right along. If you need any advice on the collaboration, its formatting, how many templates you need to change, its nomination/voting procedure, don't hesitate to ask. 2)I guess I forgot my manners when saying Sheep81 was probably the best dinosaur editor here.I should have agknowledged you, as you obviously felt insulted. You are the best editor here. You've contributed so much to every collaboration article that's come up. Let me see, there's been T rex, Velociraptor, Diplodocus, T rex in pop culture, Procompy, etc etc... Yes, you've by far edited them the most, & Sheep's name only appears a couple of times across the whole thing. Or is it the other way round? Never mind. 3)I agree totally that I am nobody's boss. I should realise this, & as such, I will now resign from the Dinosaur Project. Consider my resignation on your desk & all my responsibilities now yours. I felt I was just doing my job, trying to get people supposedly so dedicated to the project that they wanted a whole article featured every month. I said no, it was impossible. But they said yey, it isth possible. So the first month went by. Both Trex & Velociraptor were featured. Then next month Diplodocus & Ankylosaurus were made good articles. Then the next 4 were edited pretty well. Then Procompy had about 7 or 8 changes made, 2 of which were me placing & removing the current dinosaur collaboration banner. I'm full-heartedly sorry for getting a lil' wee bit patriotic & trying to muster the troops to make another surge to show that we aren't just Sheep81 & a bunch of other editors who don't much. I guess due to your extreme "Until then, shut up" opposition, you don't want that to happen. For that, once again I'm sorry.

I hope you have a nice day. Any questions about your collaboration & how to get everyone to work on 4 FA's like me, don't hesitate to ask. Peace out. Spawn Man 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bother reading that. Soo 10:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Main page

'The King' is up there today, in all his glory. - Soo 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He is, indeed. I added him to our project's list of Achievements. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks to Firsfron, Sheepy & me, it is up there. Where were you Soo? Oh wait, attacking my way of getting things done. Sorry, I guess that was more important. My mistake... Spawn Man 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't forget to mention the extensive contributions by Ballista and CasLiber (and later Dinoguy) to T-rex. Seriously, guys, let's not argue, OK? Spawn Man, you've done a terrific job at maintaining and keeping the enthusiasm up on the dinosaur collaborations. There's no need for you to give the collaboration project up. I apologize for not getting a ton of work done on the last two articles. However, you did come on a little strong in the above post. Someone who hasn't worked with you a lot might mistake your comments for being rude, when I know you're just trying to get the team motivated. Agentsoo, Spawn really didn't mean the comments in as negative a way as it seems. I value your own contributions to dinosaur articles in the past, and hope you'll be able to contribute more in the future. Spawn was too aggressive above, but he does have good intentions. C'mon, guys, can't we just put this behind us for the good of the WikiProject? There are still tons of very short dinosaur articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well put, although Soo's post was just as bad... Anyway, I concur matey! :) Spawn Man 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll continue to contribute or not to whichever articles I want to at the time, regardless of the rantings of the child. Also I didn't write the comment above, my signature has appeared on it due to some kind of Wiki screw-up caused by Spawn Man's malformed HTML comment. Sorry to whoever did actually write it. Soo 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I don't know anything about the argument here and I definitely am not on either "side", but please resist the urge to insult other Wikipedians. "But he started it!" is not an appropriate attitude for encyclopedia editors.
Two official policies and a guideline: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette. -- Writtenonsand 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Growth ring needs an article

Plateosaurus says "growth rings in bone suggests periods of varying growth". Growth ring only discusses growth rings in trees. As far as I can see, all similar terms redirect to Growth ring, and there's no article on growth rings in bone. Can anybody locate or create this? Thanks -- Writtenonsand 15:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help watch Big Al

Allosaurus: "One of the more significant finds was the 1991 discovery of "Big Al" (MOR 593)..." - Big Al is getting peppered with vandalisms and quasi-vandalisms (non-notable additions per WP:N) - please help to keep an eye on it. -- Writtenonsand 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Derivation of Aublysodon - help needed

The article on Aublysodon has a proposed derivation that is accompanied by a question mark (query). This is very 'unencyclopaedic'. Please see my entry on the Talk page, for an alternative proposal and a request for help in resolving this. - Ballista 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullatosauria

Please see my request for help on Talk:Troodontidae - Ballista 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Skull: How about a pretty diagram or two?

I've been trying to link some of the osteological and other anatomical terms in the articles, and finding that many of the destination articles are pretty H. sapiens-centric.

Case in point: Various cranial bones are mentioned from time to time. It would be nice for the lay person to be able to gain some idea what is being talked about. Cranium aka Skull has a couple of nice diagrams, but they are - once again - of that damned bipedal primate.

Would anybody care to do a nice schematic or representative graphic of a non-H. sapiens skull with the bones labelled, and add it to the page? Thanks. (I suspect that we can fairly easily find an old copyright-expired graphic to use.) -- Writtenonsand 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We have asked Scott Hartman for stuff before and he has granted it for use... can we ask him for some skull drawings? I don't know him but someone does.Sheep81 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek characters

Hello everyone, good to be back online here at WP: Dinos. Anyway we have been having a discussion on some users' talk pages but it's time to get it out in the open. What are our Project members' opinions on using Greek characters (along with Latin transliteration) when we write out the derivation of names? I personally think it adds a fun nerdy little touch and also makes it more verifiable as sometimes things can be lost in transliteration. But I can see the other side too... irrelevant, pretentious, etc. Also, there has been a very minor debate on the format we should use if we do use Greek characters... for example, should they be bolded, italicized, or just plain text? Thanks, I know we are all busy so I don't want to take up too much of your time.

By the way, if you are going to use Greek characters, here is an amazing resource you can use... and messing with the "Configure display" option in the top left you can get it to display in either Greek characters or the Latin transliteration.Sheep81 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, no bolding. The Manual of Style indicates bold text is reserved for the first time the name of the article appears in the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Erg, that would be me. OK - italics it is then (umm...have to change a few bold ones). I was doing bold plus double commas.... I like the greek bits as it adds character as why/how they were named (plus get to play with different text.)Cas Liber 07:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelosaurus (& "Angloposeidon")

An anon editor recently added Kelosaurus to our List of dinosaurs. A quick google search doesn't pull up much besides unrelated MySpace accounts, and the Dinosaur Mailing List archives, as well as George O's list, updated two days ago, don't mention this dinosaur. In the past, we've had dinosaurs added that were so new, Google wasn't showing anything, but they still at least appeared on the DML archives. Is this animal legit? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I rather think it's a "vanity edit" or whatever these things are called, so I went ahead and excised it. Now what to do about 'Angloposeidon'? Seems legit enough to me, despite being a nomen nudum ;-) Dracontes 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Dracontes. The Dinosaur Mailing List indicates "Angloposeidon" is in too poor of a condition to classify beyond "indeterminate Brachiosaurid", and that is only its informal name. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it compare to the other nomina nuda on the list?Sheep81

It is known from only one vertebra, which is in poor condition. It was not placed on George O.'s List of Dinosaurs. We could certainly add it to ours, with a citation. Here is the first part of the DML which discusses it: here, where Professor Taylor mentions it (and also mentions the original paper, BTW), and here where his opinion about 1 vert being non-diagnostic is rebutted. For the record, I believe we do have other articles on sparse nomina nuda, including "Capitalsaurus", which also known from a single vertebra. But "Capitalsaurus" at least appears on George O.'s list. "Angloposeidon" does not. Don't ask me why one was excluded while the other was not. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I for one approve of its inclusion in this list. The name as had some usage as I get at least 77 hits in Google with 17 of them being "unique" [3]. Not that much of a worn name, I agree, but since all nomina nuda here are qualified as "informal name" and have a more or less correct scientific Latin derivation, I wouldn't think too much of this one being added to the ranks. Taylor's disapproval of the name's propagation hasn't much bearing on its inclusion on the list (it has propagated) though I think that's the reason why Olshevsky didn't include it in his genera list. Besides, I gather the specimen has an interesting story worthy of being told ;-) Dracontes 08:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I wouldn't mind its inclusion, as long as it's properly cited. List of dinosaurs recently became a Featured List, and I'd hate to see it devolve, with uncited genera added willy-nilly. Question, though: we aren't adding taxoboxes to nomina nuda, are we? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hell, no!! I agree whole-heartedly that if a named specimen isn't properly described it shouldn't have a taxobox. Dracontes 08:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, that settles that. We'll have to fix a few articles on nomina nuda which have sprouted taxoboxes, but that's easy enough to fix. Thanks for the answer. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Images in infobox...skeleton or model?

I have noticed that the majority of the dinosaur pages tend to use an image of a skeleton, rather than a (commons) image of a model/painting or what ever. Doesnt anyone think that it would serve a better purpose to use images of a model instead, as it would be easier for people to identify the species? I guess though, some 'models' may not be that accurate...but what do people think? Sorry if this has been discussed before. Davey4 09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually prefer using the skeleton in the taxobox, since models and drawings rely more on interpretation and can vary from artist to artist. Skeletons ae fairly concrete and unchanging.Dinoguy2 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Skeletons are what we have, other stuff is just interpretation. --HappyCamper 16:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha... considering like 3% of our articles actually have images, I'll settle for anything at this point. Sheep81 03:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think pragmatism is helpful at this point given Sheepy's observation. Worth noting that skeletons are often conjectural too with most dinosaurs only known from incomplete remains and many skeletal models not highlighting which parts are known and which conjectural. Some images are great and some skeletons are, I would take it on a page by page basis on whichever is the worthiest/most excellent image (to quote Wayne and Garth...........:)Cas Liber 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was curious about Sheep's comment, so I did an AWB search. We've got around 1,000 dinosaur articles. AWB shows we've got images for at least 144 articles, so we have images for at least 10%. For the record, I'd like to see the actual fossils, too, if possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

user:Elmo12456 and dinosaur articles

After a long absence, it appears this user has returned. Someone needs to go thru his contributions with a fine toothed comb: he's been adding questionable material, including adding the wrong pictures to dinosaur articles. The dinosaurs appear to be similar, but I think it is a really bad idea to substitute a picture of Archaeopteryx for Wellnhoferia, Hagryphus for Chirostenotes, etc. It's possible Wellnhoferia is actually Archie, but the photo itself still says Archaeopteryx, which may lead to reader confusion. Additionally, he's adding taxoboxes to dinosaurs which have not yet been formally described. Are we doing that? I'll revert my own reverts if that is the decision, but I thought someone mentioned months back that they don't get taxoboxes if they're not formally described yet. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably a bad idea to add taxoboxes to undescribed species, sine they can only consist of original research. Unfortunately I'm on the road and don't have much time to check Elmo's contributions. To be fair, the rawing of Hagryphus is an officially re-labelled drawing of Nomingia anyway. It looks like a derived oviraptorine, not a caenagnathid at all...Dinoguy2 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do notice that he's created a category for the paraphyletic group "copelurids", whichj is probably a real bad idea for a lot of reasons, especially since the contents of coeluridae vary more than the authors publishing on it.Dinoguy2 02:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then if you agree, I'll run fixes on the contribs tomorrow (it's too late tonight). Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Category:Coelurids as the category was empty for the last four days. Thanks also for your fixes today on Elmo-edited articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Template:Dinobird-stub? It makes something deep inside me cringe. Should provide link to Dinosaur-bird connection at the very least or (preferentially, if you ask me) rather deleted outright again and replaced w/Template:Dinosaur-stub and Template:Paleo-bird-stub as required. I have the bird stuff in the pipeline and might just start working on it, add taxoboxes at the least (To Elmo's credit, he does get stuff started that I wouldn't want to touch in the first place).

By the way, what about Template:Paleo-stub? I have a nice ammonite icon that I could put there to de-equivocalize the Archie icon. Dysmorodrepanis 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Manus linking

Right now, manus in these dinosaur articles do not have anywhere to link to. To me it at best can point to a definition on Wikidictionary, but if someone thinks an encyclopedia article can be made for Manus (hand) or Manus (dinosaur), then go ahead and create it. Please do not link to the disambigation page at Manus. --- Jagged 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the creation of the Manus (zoology) article. Just what was needed. Thanks. --- Jagged 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That was Ballista, of course... Nice job, B! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Extinction Portal

Just to inform you all here. The WikiProject Extinction has created a Extinction Portal. The topic of extinction overlaps with Dinosaurs of course. The participants of the Extinction WikiProject and Portal are mostly focussed on recent extinctions (including myself). Maybe you could add some dinosaur content to the portal. Peter Maas 12:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Paleo-maps

Hi, does anybody know a good source for maps of Earth in prehistoric times? Probably one would have to DIY them... still, all I can find are assorted odds and ends, but the temporal resolution is low (1 per epoch usually). It would be useful in general to have maps ready that show Earth during the Maastrichtian e.g. Dysmorodrepanis 05:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the reason the temporal resolution is so low is because they are total generalizations... we don't have enough geological information to make good maps of the entire world for individual stages... even some of the ones for individual epochs are kinda sketchy. But don't let that stop you from looking. Sheep81

Just for reference, there are a couple of websites from paleo plate tectonic workers with simulated maps:

Paleomap Project by Dr. Chris Scotese

Dr. Ron Blakey's site

Both of them have the low temporal resolution issue, but both have a KT projection, and they're fun to look at anyway.J. Spencer 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we're talking! These are very cool, thanks a lot! While not complete, this material should allow to build some good paleo-maps for starters. IONO when (and if) I will do it, but at least there is some good material to work with! Dysmorodrepanis 06:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

DinoData has a pretty good resource for prehistoric geography and the geology behind it as well [4].Dinoguy2 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Stegosaurus still sitting on FAC list

Firsfron has done some excellent final editing yet discussion seems to have stagnated. A few supports would be really helpful. If folk felt they couldn't support it some feedback on why not would be great. cheers (trying to get this one over the line) Cas Liber 23:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)