Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Interested Dinophiles

If you are interested in collaborating on Wikipedia's dinosaur content, please add your user name below using #~~~. Signing one's username to the list below should not be taken as an obligation to assist with this initiative or to edit any particular article(s), nor is putting one's name on the list a requirement for participation. All Wikipedians are free to contribute as much or as little as desired.

For any other questions, ideas or thoughts, please feel free to add a message to this talk page.

  1. Cas Liber - Co-Maintenance officer of Dinosaur Collaboration.
  2. Spawn Man - Co-Maintenance officer of Dinosaur Collaboration.
  1. Ballista.
  2. Dinoguy2.
  3. Firsfron of Ronchester.
  4. Sheep81.
  5. Jayant,17 Years, Indiacontribs.
  6. DinoBird.
  7. Mistyschism.
  8. RebSkii.
  9. Crimsonraptor.
  10. Dracontes.

Also, when a new collaboration article arises, please visit the following page, which will update the link on the community portal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/ Collaboration of the fortnight/current. Thanks, Spawn Man.


1) How long should collaborations run for?
2) Should collaborations get their own subpage or should we just use the articles' talk pages?

Sheep81 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If I have my wiki terminology wrong let me know but, in a perfect world, a collaboration should go until the article is featured :) Dinoguy2 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, the end of the official collaboration period doesn't mean we stop working on it. But it seems most collaborations are temporary (so that the group can move on to improve another article). A lot of them are only a week, others are longer (two weeks or a fortnight). Once an article gets to the point where we start thinking about getting it featured, it can be referred down to the bottom section of the page, I think. Sheep81 04:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. By the way, near the top of the collaboration page, the phrase "Nothing yet!" is a bit out of date, now. :-) - Ballista 05:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi everyone.... To make it seem like other collaborations, I feel we need a few things to be changed...

1)Collaborations should have a running time. I think 2 weeks should be ideal, as the editors needed are specialistic in nature & the subject may also not be familiar with some people. 1 week would not get the appropriate coverage needed or time, as we do not have as many editors as AID etc. Any longer than 2 weeks & we would risk boredom & neglect.
2)The sections need to be shuffled around a bit. At the moment, all the sections look the same, such as the participant's list & featured dinos section look exactly the same as the section we want to be looked at, the nominations section. It needs some clear border or difference from other sections & the others need to be smaller & less obvious sections. Also, the list of participants needs to be placed at the bottom, or even deleted. It has no real purpose. Anyone who signs that is already a member of wikiproject dinos or has voted for one of the nominees already. It takes up space & detracts from the other sections. If it absolutely needs to be kept, I suggest it goes at the bottom of the page or on its talk page.
3)The formatting of the nominations is lacking. It needs a "Stays to", "Nominated on" etc etc like AID, whos voting system works wonderously.

I can get onto any of these, & will probably fiddle around with the nominations anyway. Any improvements on my ideas? Only if somebody else wants to, I can do all this myself later on. Further, since we have this collaboration, the Big 20 can go from wikiproject dinos. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I just kind of threw something together to get things rolling. If you think the page should be arranged differently, I think you probably know best. 2 weeks sounds good to me, and yeah, we don't really need the list of participants. Sheep81 00:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the page looks much better now. I've changed the nomination & voting procedure & shifted the participant's list to here. The sections are now much less alike & the template thingy that Kirill fixed is beautiful. I hope you like it. Spawn Man 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Looks really professional now, like we actually know what we are doing or something. Sheep81 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Heaven forbid that it should look like we know what we're doing! (seriously, page looking good) - Ballista 07:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on voting[edit]

I'm wondering if 4 votes a week isn't too high a bar to set, considering there are only 6 of us who even really come to this page. Maybe we should lower it to 2 per week for now, until more people start participating? Just a thought. Spawn? Anyone?Sheep81 08:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Someone asked my opinion! Yes bar should be dropped. I was just getting a good starting point... Spawn Man 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you clarify on the page what the new bar is set at? 2 or 3? Thanks! Sheep81 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
2 Spawn Man 00:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

.......first past the post maybe? Cas Liber 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we vote twice?????????? :-) - Ballista 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
No double voting.... :) Spawn Man 00:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - only joking, of course, to bring a bit of the 'ridiculous' into this thread, as there were so few of us. :-) - Ballista 07:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

New link[edit]

I finally noticed that the dino collaboration wasn't actually linked to via the collaboration section in the community portal. So I included it in & created the above link (below the participant's list), which is used much the same as a template, i.e. {{}}. All you have to do is change the link on the page & it will change the link on the community portal. No fiddling with it peoples other than that!!!! Thanks, Spawn Man 02:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination comments[edit]

Hey all, it's great that some of us are working on articles even before they get selected as the collaboration, but I think if we have extensive comments on what we are doing to articles that have only been nominated but not selected yet, we should probably have that discussion on the article talk page instead of the collaboration page, at least until the article actually gets nominated. I could be off base here and it's probably not that big of a deal, but just saying. Sheep81 10:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point-presumably as we get cracking on a few it is easier to have info close at hand and relevant rather than buried in an archive somewhere. Cas Liber 14:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs n votes?[edit]

I'm not sure I understand the 'needs n votes' part. Why does each dinosaur nominated have a different number of votes needed? Why is the number so high for T-rex (6), but the last dinosaur on the list needs only 2 votes? This seems really confused to me. What am I missing?--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See the Article Improvement Drive voting system as we are using the exact same thing. For example: T rex was nominated on say the 1st. It will stay for a week unless it gets 2 votes, in that case it stays for an extra week. Once it has 2 votes by the deadline date (8th of the same month), it will need a further 2 votes to stay another week & so on. If a nominee gets enough votes, it could stay for a while! The reason T rex had 6 votes before a deadline was because it had already gotten the 4 votes needed to stay 2 extra weeks & needed 2 more votes (6) to stay yet another week. Hope this helps a bit.... But don't worry, just vote & I'll maintain everything... Spawn Man 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Next FAC?[edit]

Well, folks, what's up next? Do we go for the big guy (I mean T-rex), one of these other fine fellows listed here, or take a well-deserved break?--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats all round on job well done. I vote we go for T. rex, while we're on a roll. - Ballista 04:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind I moved this to the talk page. Don't want to clutter up the front page too much, you know? Anyway, Tyrannosaurus is a long way from featured quality still in my opinion. I think we should probably have it peer reviewed prior to FAC anyway just to make sure it's top-notch considering the importance of the article. Sheep81 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a very sound plan - as you say, big feller tho' he is, with so much known about him, for some reason the article still lacks some weight. - Ballista 06:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Agentsoo spun the popular culture section into a separate article, so it lost some weight right there.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm ... true enough - but putting that back in would overpower the 'proper' stuff - what say to some extracts coming back in (highlights)? The separate article is a goody, too, so I wouldn't advocate losing that. - Ballista 08:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't advocating moving Agentsoo's article back in, just for the record. I think a separate article was needed, in this case.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Awww, I don't know about being along way off from Featured Article Status - I foud it reads a bit easier that Velociraptor. Peer Reviewing it is a good idea if everyone has been tweaking it a bit here and there and feeling a little brain dead. The extra input may be good :) Cas Liber 11:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gasp! Velociraptor not as good as T rex??!! I doubt it... ;). Anyway, yes, T rex is a way off from becoming a FA. In my experience, don't send any article to Peer review. You only waste valuable time on one or two comments. I put ap a couple of peer reiviews & recieved only two responses between them & lost a week of editing when I could be doing the same thing in an FAC. Generally, people respond more on an FAC page rather than peer review. So IMHO, I think in a week or so (because we still have velociraptor, pssita & alberta to go on the main page & we don't want to overload it!) we should simply nominate T rex for FAC & then do things from there, rather than waste time on a fruitless Peer review. Anyway, Spawn Man 02:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so do we, um, nominate it then? Cas Liber 06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Not yet. It'll get like 80 immediate objections if we nominate it now. Sheep81 06:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hence why I said in a week or two... Spawn Man 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

C'mon guys get fire wise![edit]

Ohmigoshbatman! Our work efforts into the selected article collaboration has dwindled slowly. Velociraptor had good amounts of work on it, same with T rex. But honestly, work on Diplodocus is shameful! C'mon guys, boost up the tempo for the final days of this article's nomination! I expect to see another article either featured or in peer review (although peer review sucks!) before the next collaboration is chosen! Gosh, what ever you guys are doing, hugging trees (cause you all seem so mellow bout everything) or digging up fossils, you guys need a push into activity! *Sigh*.... Spawn Man 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been at work for 48 out of the last 72 hours (I'm still there now actually)... I haven't had time. Sheep81 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm...where's Tyrannosaurus now then in the production line.............?Cas Liber 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I dunno about you, but I'm somewhere between joning the 2nd & 3rd spinal discs... It needs some polishing & after that, send it straight to FAC IM(H)O... Spawn Man 03:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't get the spinal discs comment. I guess we shift 'do do' ideas onm the bottom of the Tyrannosaurus talk page?Cas Liber 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That comment was huge in America man! Gosh! Anyway, don't shift any to do's from any subpages, you can copy them, but don't move them. We need to record & keep recording... It'll stuff everything up.... Righteous... Spawn Man 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm....I actually can't add anything else to any dinosaurs articles because I dont anything about them. :-D ...Does anyone have any dino articles that need to be started from the scratch? Jayant,17 Years, Indiacontribs 10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The List of short dinosaur articles lists most of the shortest articles. Almost anything could be added to make them longer: most are missing basic things like taxoboxes, pictures, and references, or details, like who discovered them, etc. Stuff that can easily be added, without a whole lot of research. --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, Thanks a lot for that! I'll do whatever I can. I know, I should've have noticed that page ealier but lately I haven't been following any discussions and all out of sorts with this dial-up internet and the fact that I am vacationing in Kuwait isn't doing any good to my edit count. :-( Jayant,17 Years, Indiacontribs 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not that old of a page (only a month old or so), so that's probably why you didn't see it earlier. Kuwait? During the summer? Sounds... hot... :/ --Firsfron of Ronchester 01:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Yeah, I know... Whatever you may think, I am, infact, vacationing in Kuwait, in the summer, and I am not proud of it.. ;-) Jayant,17 Years, Indiacontribs 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey looky, Diplodocus has been made a GA..Cas Liber 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Production Line[edit]

OK, is it worth putting the former collaborations at the bottom in a new line before "Dinos in Peer Review". Is it worth sticking Diplodocus in "Peer Review"? Anyone mind if I do this? Cas Liber 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't get: " it worth putting the former collaborations at the bottom in a new line before "Dinos in Peer Review?" To answer your other question, no, it is not worth sticking it in peer review. I've been here long enough to know peer reviews do nothing. You may 1 or 2 responses, but nothing really useful. To get anything done, you just stick it straight on FAC, & people flock to it like pig sweat in winter! If you don't want to dod that, just ask at the WP: Dinosaur's talk page & we'll give it a once over before it goes to trial. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was putting a heading of sorts for things which have been collaborations but in a bit of limbo, that is not nominated yet but had some work done (like where Diplodocus is now). Where the other headings are at the bottom of the collaboration page. Just so stuff doesn't get lost in the wikiwoodwork.Cas Liber 07:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, but I don't know what Spawn Man thinks.--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
..the main thing is that I am just ensuring things don't get lost along the way and it is the other step between being a winner and being collaborated on for two weeks and then polished up for FA. It is just insurance that there are no gaps.Cas Liber 08:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Still not quite sure what you mean (maybe I've gone dumb!). If you mean like a record of past collaborations & nominations, we do have this page here Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration/Past DCs, accessible from the collaboration page. If you meant anything else, I'm sorry but I still have no idea. Sorry, it is late here.... Spawn Man 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll show you.... Cas Liber 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at what you've done, it seems as possible idea, but at the same time a bit unneccessary (or how ever you spell it!). We do have the past DCs page for previous winners & non-winners, so the only reason we would be putting them on the main collaboration page would be to get more people to work on it. Although good intentioned, I feel it is not needed as of the moment. If I see that people are forgetting past winners & nominating other dinosaurs for FACs more frequently than not, I will definitely revise the proposal. Thanks a lot for your enthusiastic ideas & thoughts! If you have anything else to address on the page, please do so. Spawn Man 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. How's about an algorithm which takes the time process out of it? All time limits and 2 weekly voting is disregarded. This way an article that, for instance, collaborators stop working on for any reason, is not forgotten and other folks can come at any time and pick up from where left off. This then eliminates 'former nominees' and 'former collaborations' completely. Also eliminates need for voting on one nominee over another (there are too few voters anyway and most of us are voting a few times). This way there may be a few collaborations that folk are working on an some may

reach FA status alot more quickly than others.

  • Step 1. A person nominates article 'X' as a possible one-day Featured Article. (cat=Nominee)
  • Step 2. Nominee either gets 3 supporting votes. This should be based on a combination of current plus projected article status (i.e. potential information)
  • Step 3. If successful, goes into 'Collaboration Article' cat.
  • Step 4. Then, by consensus, once collaborators feel an attempt at FAC is warranted, nomination. This can be informal or another 3 supports.

Cas Liber 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The proccess is too complicatated for some of you already. Can't you just let things be simple? There is a page for those articles on the collaboration. I, or anyone else, can quite easily bring those articles into the spot light once again. For example, I brought Velociraptor & T rex to FAC. It's that simple. No need for another section, another complicated vote, no nothing. Until we get at least a few more voters, (see the Triceratops nomination on the main collaboration page for kore info), we shouldn't be doing anything that complicated. The system at the moment is working fine; the only problem is is the fact that no one is really working on the nominated article (I'm about the only major contributor to Struthiomimus!). First work on the nominated article before doing anything else guys! We don't want to become an inactive collaboration do we?? As the maintainer of this page, I feel any new editions will be both largely confusing & tiresome to update every 2 weeks or so. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, well what about Diplodocus? Does this mean once an article is nominated, then there are two weeks to work on it and then.......what? Which do you consider to have priority? If you're keeping tabs on things well and good I guess...Cas Liber 08:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well actually 4 weeks, because it still appears under the current collaboration in "Last dinosaur collaboration...". I will keep tabs on everything, & anyway, Diplodocus has made it to GA status, which is one of the things we were aiming for. If that's our outcome for every collaboration we do, I thnik it's a job well done... Spawn Man 22:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

New voting??[edit]

seems to me we have too few voting to make this whole business meaningful (yet another heresy) - that's why I made the joke about voting twice, a while back. All the ones we've had up on this board have been good possibilities & they just fade out for lack of votes, simply because our target is almost impossible, with our small numbers. I propose we should have three or four up, at each nomination, with each of us allowed to vote for two. One with the most votes goes through or we invent a tie-break, penalty shoot-out method of deciding ties. I now put my tin hat on and sit down. :-) - Ballista 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • With the same five or six people voting every time, I guess it's a little silly. But I like it anyway! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
We could start by re-nominataing every former nomination again on Aug 2 (and then some) and get a real race with a load of starters. ;)Cas Liber 08:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh! Yes! That's perfect! ;) Another idea: close your eyes and click randomly on the List of dinosaurs page. First ten clicks are collaboration articles. ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh - have we descended so far? :-) Cas's suggestion could work but we need a way of spreading our five or six voters, in a meaningful way (e.g., depending how many nominations, each have a set number of votes that we can use that is fewer than the number of nominations.) - Ballista 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Until we get more voters, (& we will due to the 2 new voters that have appeared!), we can't really be too picky on how we vote. Put aside the voting, our most important task should be the improvement of nominated articles. It doesn't really matter which we vote for, as long as the articles are voted for. However, I do feel Cas's random selection is a good one! Since I'm Maintenance Officer, I could select say 5 or 4 dinosaur articles & then everyone could pick or choose on which they really want to vote on. If they want to vote for all, that should be allowed. This would of course only be in place until more voters (say at least 10 regular voters) arrive. Thoughts? Spawn Man 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is good, depending upon what we mean by random. I assume not computer randomisation (when an 80kB article could just as easily come up) but a selection of 'likely' dinos, based upon your own assessment. If so, I'm with you but I still think we'd need to be able to vote for at least two each, to create a ranking. - Ballista 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved this conversation here to avoid too big a mess on the main page. Okay, Let's have a vote for the following rules on voting:

New rules: I, (Spawn Man) will pick 5 random articles from the List of Dinosaurs (Ensuring they actually need fixing etc...), as discussed above. Then, every person will be allowed to vote up to 3 times on different nominations (people aren't voting on everything now anyway so 3 seems better). From there voting & selection will continue as per normal. However, the process may change once numbers increase or it seems to be not working out. -- Spawn Man 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support:
  1. Spawn Man 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC).
  2. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Sounds fine to me, although I never really quite understood the old version of voting, so take my vote with a grain of salt.
  3. I support this, of course, since it is close to my own proposal. However, I opened up this morning in order to put a further suggestion: that we should each have a first, second and third choice (scored 3, 2, 1). That way, the ranking may spread out better. - Ballista 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    1. I agree that would be great, but it would be both lost & complicated on most people. And if someone made a mistake, & I tried to update it, I wouldn't know if the vote was worth 1,2 or 3 points. Although it is a good idea, I feel all votes should remain the same value for sake of easiness... Spawn Man 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sounds fine.Cas Liber 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    1. I can run with that but I think we DESPERATELY need to introduce something new, now :-). Voting is bogged down again. - Ballista 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    2. I agree! --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposition:
  1. ....
Voting -- Voting seems to be going great now however, with Soo deciding to enter the mix. Maybe we should keep this plan for a rainy day. However, if you guys want to only pick one or two nominations to vote on, feel free to. Spawn Man 04:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation and references[edit]

This may appear to be a trifling issue (yes, I am pedantic :-)!) but we have an inconsistency in the way the in-text references are positioned, relative to the next punctuation mark. If a reference is to text that appears before a comma, should we perhaps have the reference also before the comma? The same applies to a full stop (period). If the reference is placed after a full stop or comma, it can appear to hang nowhere (IMO). I did try to alter the positioning, one one article (possibly T. rex), but was rapidly reverted. That made me think that there are clearly two sides to this question and perhaps we should try to agree a consistent approach. The inconsistency now shows on our latest projects. I don't really mind which, so long as it is agreed and consistent, esp. in our collaboration articles. - Ballista 07:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty consistent among FAC reviewers, at least, that the ref will come after the punctuation. But I don't know if that is policy. I personally think it looks better after, as long as there is no space.Sheep81 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no policy. According to WP:CITE#Templates, it doesn't matter; in fact, there's no requirement that inline citations be used at all. That's only the preference of the people who have been reviewing our FACs. I'm more than willing to do whatever they want to make the article better, but let's be clear: there's no policy that in-line refs be used, or that the punctuation must come before or after the ref.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

....Which one next on the production line to FAC then?[edit]

OK folks, from comparing the pages of Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Struthiomimus and Triceratops, does anyone get a sense of which one is closest to being nominated (and possibly worked on to punt into the FAC?). I'd say the first 3 were pretty even (?) Cas Liber 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question as always, Cas. :) I'd like to go for a Jurassic dinosaur this time, so my vote is for Stegosaurus. I've done a bit of work on that one, and would like to see it come to fruition (in fact, I got so carried away I started on Kentrosaurus). On the other hand, if the consensus of the group was to get a different one to FA status, I'd gladly help.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, am plugging away at Stegosaurus as this one to me seems most do-able to FAC. Question is, when to submit> MOre images would be nice though. Cas Liber 04:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Right - have played with it. Was about to nominate Stegosaurus as FAC and as I was trying to write nomination realised it needs some 'meat' in the plates section.Cas Liber 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sod it -tweaked a couple of things.Cas Liber 14:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New template![edit]

Hello, in an attempt to help collaborate across COTW projects, I've made a template that displays the current picks of each. I've made a template for you to be able to add the name of the current article {{collab-dinosaurs}}, which you can also use to transclude in your other templates so you don't have to update those manually. You'd only need to update this new one to populate the others on rollover. The new template that will display your current pick is {{COTWCurrentPicks}}. plange 03:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Spawn Man 03:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You would edit the new template with the name of the new collab article and if you also replace the hard-coding of the article name in any templates with the new template, then you will automate things. You'd only have to edit the new template to keep all templates up to date. --plange 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

Good to see T. rex up there, on the Main page today, King where he belongs! - Ballista 04:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work everyone. Oh by the way, I think Soo wants to have a go at running this collaboration. I think everyone should get behind him & really give him good feedback. It's no easy task... Spawn Man 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


As I was so fed up with there being none, I have made the very rash move of creating an article on Rinchen Barsbold. As he's such a crucial feller in paleontology, please could everyone take a look as soon as possible, to ensure accuracy, up-to-dateness, etc. Thanks - Ballista 11:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi - I'll be away a while & may be unable to access the internet. Apologies in advance in case of non-responses etc. Ciao for now. - Ballista 03:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

have a nice holidayCas Liber 04:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stegosaurus on FAC list[edit]

OK everyone, I have nominated this beastie - it's pretty comprehensive. Would love folk to support it or give it a last tweak especially if a few objects turn up....Cas Liber 14:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dino collab production line[edit]

Hi everybody - Diplodocus is steadily shaping up to be nominated soon. There is a neck and neck race for the next nomination. I will be off and on in the next couple of weeks but the next nomiation will be decided next week, so vote if you want.Cas Liber 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think ties are counterproductive[edit]

(Gasp, splutter, coming up for air)

Sorry all - been tied up and unable to contribute. I will extend the next vote up until December 21 as I think a tie will dilute efforts. Sorry. cheers Cas Liber 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a tie will dilute efforts, especially a three-way tie. Glad to see you active again, BTW. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

joining in[edit]

although i have little interest in dinosaurs, i decided i wanted to join this group. after i noticed the nomination of Diplodocus, i tried reading a couple of articles and noticed that there are some redundancies. maybe i can help in fixing. thanks and more power to the group. --RebSkii 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I goofed - I thought it was the 17th of Jan (d'oh!)[edit]

There I go - I should have announced Iggy on the 10th but for some reason had 17th in my head. Anyway, gave folks a bit of time on Triceratops....

Anyway, now we have two dinos to work on. One near to FAC, the other needing a quite a bit of going over yet...Cas Liber 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Triceratops nominated[edit]

OK, here we go.....Cas Liber 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

..........And through to FA (phew!) :) Cas Liber 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Next collaboration tied - voting extended by 7 days. Need tie-breaker[edit]

Alright folks - voting is tied at 4 apiece between Ankylosaurus and Compsognathus. I have extended voting by 7 days (well, people have only just started attacking the Iguanodon article anyways...). If it is still tied then I'll toss a coin and vote myself (I thought I'd give people a last chance to vote and I honestly couldn't decide myself) :) cheers Cas Liber 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Hey Cas, why aren't the nominations under the nominations header? Currently they're under the "For more complete articles" header. See the TOC to see what I'm talking about. Thought I'd let you fix anything incase you had a plan for it or something.... Thnak,s Spawn Man 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm yeah.......ok. will do cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Better? Can you vote now? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Gee, calm down. ;) I don't really like any of the candidates.... But I guess I might vote on one... Spawn Man 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Awww -ya don't like any...aaaaah you found Deinonychus then. I did think of nominating Giganotosaurus as it is a southern hemisphere one, At least Compy and Archie are from Europe....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New formatting[edit]

Hi everyone, changed formatting & tidied up the collaboration a bit as per discussions with Cas, current maintainor of collab. Hope the changes make the voting run a bit more smoothly... Thanks, Spawn Man 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A note on FA dinogeographics[edit]

OK folks, after some amazing work on Iggy, Compy, Archie and Thesky (with Deinonychus in the pipeline - can't think of a nickname) there's a bunch of candidates for the next collab and possibly no backlog (!). Now Thescelosaurus Allosaurus leads but a whole bunch of other dinos are tied for 2nd spot. Who will win.....take your chance and vote now....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - stats:

  • generally we have 5 theropods (including 1 dino-bird), 2 ceratopsians, 1 sauropod, 1 stegosaur (or thyreophore as you like), and 2 ornithopods.
  • temporally we have 7 cretaceous and 4 jurassic
  • geographically we have 6 Nth American, 2 Asian and 3 European dinos (All from the Nthn Hemisphere!)

Something to think about anyway..cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Preceding bit update FYI[edit]

OK - Given Thescelosaurus is polishing up so well I have fast tracked the next vote to April 1st (instead of mid-april), so knock yerselves out..........cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Underrepresented categories - part uno[edit]

OK - Firsfron left me a note on whether/how/if/when we'd do an aussie dino. Much as I am a patriotic Australian I was amused to read how Australia has the most meagre dino fossil record.....even including Antarctica!!

The best idea for a dino FA maybe actually a Sea Monster - Kronosaurus queenslandicus, or Minmi may be another, the Victorian small ornithopod dinosaurs and a discussion on polar dinos may be a good bet too.

A much more fertile ground for southern hemisphere dinos would be Argentina - Amargasaurus, Argentinosaurus and Giganotosaurus all come to mind. Anyone see any other possiblilities? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Massospondylus or Spinosaurus would probably be your best bets, volume-wise, for info for a Gondwanan dinosaur. A dark horse: Heterodontosauridae, a quiet GA. J. Spencer 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Spinosaurus is looking pretty meaty currently so is probably best bet, though strictly northern hemisphere (Egypt) but is African which I think is novel. There's loads of really interesting stuff about it too. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Underrepresented categories - part two-o[edit]

(Said in my best Joe Bob Briggs voice)

Ummm....a triassic dino would be nice. Plateosaurus really jumps out as the most obvious, though Massospondylus is both southern hemisphere and there....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Triassic dinos, eh? My personal fav is Herrerasaurus, and there's lots to expand in it, in any case. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; that;s a great idea as there's alot to talk about in terms of taxonomy and where it lies in the scheme of things (actually this could be true with alot of triassic critters). cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Three month turnover[edit]

The three months is up so all unsuccessful collab nominees have been archived. Plenty to work on now but is interesting to muse on what might complement what we have at Featured Status, so have a think and nominate away....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi all! Cas & I have spoken & come to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to both of us if we co-maintained the collab. A few changes have also been implemented - The nominations will be wiped clean every 1 month, rather than the old 3 months. This is to keep everything fresh etc. So, if you notice things haven't been updated in a while, leave a note on either of our talk pages & we'll try & get things going again ASAP. Cheers, Spawn Man 01:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Next FAC..?[edit]

We have a bolter! Daspletosaurus is racing down the home stretch to the FAC finishing line, with Deinonychus and Herrerasaurus neck and neck and Spinosaurus a big improver...things are happenin' cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One slight problem with Spinosaurus is the current instability of The Theropod Database; I'd put it in the back until a new version is up. Sauropelta ain't bad, either, or, dare I say it, Lambeosaurus. J. Spencer 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I'd forgotten those....I think Daspletosaurus is probably closest then...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought Plateosaurus or Scelidosaurus were just as close? Cas, I didn't get your "Gawd Spawny..." comment on the WIKIDINO talk page, so you might have to explain it to me... Anyway, sorry I haven't been as active around here as I hoped to be Cas. Hopefully we can get some more articles up to scratch... :) Spawn Man 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I just meant continuing the discussion here is all as I saw you create the new bit over there. Everytime I raise a topic here I wonder whether it isn't better placed on the general talk page. Agree about getting 'em up to scratch but I just got the first bird collab Common Raven and the first fungi collab Amanita phalloides over the line, and now the ^$%#$#@ schizophrenia article which I have too big an ego to ignore...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't see you'd made a section here until you said before. I think it would be better to place it on the main talk page. Anyway, I've finally corrected a few mistakes on the Tree of Life project page (communists...) that have been bugging me for a while regarding the placing of dinosaurs under reptiles, when they're actually not reptiles at all... Ignorant so & so's... ;) Spawn Man 08:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts...[edit]

My thoughts, based on what has been published, on the dinosaur-related articles that can most likely become FAs. These aren't set in stone, just those that would be most likely.

Origin of birds
Physiology of dinosaurs

Morrison Formation
Wealden Formation
Dinosaur Park Formation
Hell Creek Formation

Higher-order taxa:


Biology collaboration[edit]

I've suggested we create a centralized Wikipedia:Biology collaboration of the month for all biology subjects. If interested, please show your support. Richard001 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New noms:[edit]

I've nominated a couple of articles and updated the community portal link Cas. Nice work with the chart too! It's a good guide. Well, there's me done. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


The collaboration's still active, right? Spino's been on for quite a while...or are we just still working on it? Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't been active for a while now. Might be good to mark it as such......or reactivate....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to work on another one. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll set it up for voting over a month and we can choose one on January 1st - probably a simple one to get over the line. See how we go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds cool. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, now I can finally get in the collaboration and nominate some stuff :) Crimsonraptor (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominations consistency[edit]

Didn't know where else to put this so here goes.

Now that we're officially active again, it's time to start nominating. I've noticed the nominations formatting is a bit all over the place. It's a different way of supporting or opposing every time. So, I think we should get a consistent formatting for nominating articles. Here's an example:

Example (this is only in Level 4 heading to keep this in the appropriate section, this should be level 2 heading)[edit]

  • SUPPORT: Example is a really good article to do a collaboration on, as it's famous and has a lot of page hits. Crimsonraptor (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: I think the article is good enough as it is, and probably should just have a peer review right away. Crimsonraptor (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just an example, and it's similar to how we nominate FAs on the Jurassic Park Wiki.

What are your thoughts on redesigning? Crimsonraptor (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(very belatedly) oh I don't know. It's pretty simple really and shouldn't need opposes. Just sorta a first-past-the-post system of votes. One thing is that the way I tweaked it a few years ago is that each nomination gets three bites of the collaboration "cherry" before being archived. We used to have a system of noms not accruing votes of being archived, but I figured this ended up in alot of unnecessary archiving. I am going off on a tangent here aren't I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd have to disagree on that one, primarily because if people disagreed or thought it was good enough as is, they'd 1) state it in the comments section we have, or 2) nominate it themselves for Peer Review or FAC. I think until that point when an article goes up for FAC ANY article is good enough for collaboration. In fact, I think even if the article is on FAC it'd be interesting to have it on the collab's focus as it'd help bring more people to it in order to get it up to par and push it over the line. Spawn Man (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT - Can you believe there hasn't been a single reply on this page in months and we suddenly decide to have an edit conflict?? LOL! ;) Spawn Man (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reactivating the reactivated collab[edit] seems that the project is inactive. Again. This collab seems to have a habit of being sporadic...hopefully soon we can get enough contributors to keep the activity here at a stable level.

So, since Apatosaurus still needs a bit of work, I think we should get back to that. Thoughts? Crimsonraptor(Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all it needs is a couple of folks to start editing. I can do a Web of Science search on the talk page and we can take it from there. I've been meaning to buff this one for ages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to journals, apart from the obvious free ones, but I'll see if I can help with anything. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


Now, both the front page and talk page look rather messy and hard to decipher. Could also need some archiving, maybe it would be better to structure it kind of like the image review?[1] Also, I don't see why we nee3d a list of GAs and FAs on this page, when they're already on another one? I also think discussion is more fruitful than voting; editors could express their willingness to work on an entry, so we could have several ones going simultaneously with different teams, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of the GA/FA grid showing what sort of dinosaurs are featured, but agree we don't need this in two places. Feel free to clean up the pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I kept the grid, and replaced the old lists with a list of potential FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the overhaul is a go-ahead. Will we make separate sections for each taxon and the discussion of how to get the expansion/nomination done? I don't actually know anything about how the collar works, I joined after the old one went defunct. IJReid discuss 17:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Cleaning up and simplification is a great idea. And I'm looking forward to see this running again. In the German Wikipedia, we never had something like this, and I always was quite envious ;) This official collaboration-thing can be a clear plus-point of our project, and may help getting more people contributing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking something like that, Reid, but would like to see what Casliber thinks first. In this way, we could have several, ongoing projects in parallel. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@IJReid: I am not sure what you mean by a to-do section on each taxon. Originally most collaborations went on a fortnightly or monthly cycle, but the increasing complexity of passing GA and FA meant that the time was too short before everyone would move to a new collab. After some time I came up with the idea that a new one would be selected at the point the previous collab attained GA status. I just realised that happened when Apatosaurus attained it! Anyway, I think it is up to the nominator to explain why a taxon is worth working on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the idea was to have several article collaborations at once. @FunkMonk: could you elaborate on this? Are you thinking of collaborations both on articles that still need to become Good Articles (first level), and on Good Articles that need to become Featured Articles (second level)? Maybe this would be a good idea, but it also might make things more complicated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll make a sort of example below:


  • I think this genus has enough publications about it that it could be promoted to GA/Fa. Signed userX
I agree, and will help out. Perhaps it needs more on description? Signed UserY


  • I have worked on this article for a while, and could need some help with reference formatting, anyone? Signed userY
Sure, I'm on it. Signed userÆ
Me too, I'll draw a restoration. Signed userX

Indominus rex

  • This is my favourite dinosaur, who wantsa to help? Signed userÅ
Not me, I hate it. Signed UserY
  • A silly example, but I was thinking it could look something like that. There would not necessaerily have to be more than one article being worked on, but it would be possible. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Errm, I'd really worry that having more than one listed would dilute things, but if you folks wanna try this be my guest....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it shouldn't replace the current system, but be a sort of alternative or supplement? For example, while I and LittleJerry currently have Ankylosaurus at FAC, Reid and Jens are getting Opistocoelicaudia to GA, and later FA (maybe Vulcanodon as well). Furthermore, Reid and LittleJerry might renominate Apatosaurus for FAC once Ankylosaurus is closed. So we effectively have three separate teams (overlapping in membership) working at the same time. It could be a way to list what people are working on, and other users could drop comments, as a sort of in-project peer-review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking when I mentioned "separate sections". I think that maybe once all the current collabs are done, we could have people nominate articles they want to work on and if someone doesn't they could nominate another. Once everyone is working, the collabs could continue discussion on the respective talk pages. IJReid discuss 14:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope it works, I really do...I just worry. But look, why not try it. Don't worry about canning what we have already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to how the collab will work, LittleJerry and I have agreed to postpone the FAC of Apatosaurus until September, when all of Gilmore's figures on the genus become PD. These will probably change the image layout of the article, so we agreed to wait to get them before we nominate the article. IJReid discuss 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I've made a comment about the Gilmore images on Jerry's talkpage. As for collaboration, one problem I hadn't thought about is, for example, if most active members of the dino project work on the same FACs, won't it make them ineligible to vote on FACs and review GANs? Are there rules for this, Casliber? How much is one allowed to have contributed to an article before it becomes a "conflict of interest" of sorts? FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For several years I'd just declare "support (involved or otherwise)" and state my relationship to the nominator and let the FAC coordinators decide. I think if comments are detailed enough they can decide whether a support is warranted or whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool, seems I'll have a look at the Opisthocoelicaudia GAN then... FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should just try it as suggested by FunkMonk. I mean, times have changed. We now only have only few important dinosaur articles which need substancial expansion to become GA. On the other hand, we have a lot of articles which are already quite comprehensive and good, but need additional work to become GA. Btw, what about opening a dropbox/appbox for every collaboration, where everybody can store potentially interesting papers? This way, it can get easier for authors to contribute. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems the FA and GA processes have changed substantially since most dinosaur articles were featured. Back then, there were many more reviewers, and most didn't seem to actually "review" rather than just place their support, GA also seemed a bit more drive-by like. Now, more than three supports is a lot, and every support comes after a lengthy list of suggestions, and it can take months for a GA review. Therefore it also takes longer to get an article passed. The Dino project also has much less active members now it seems. Now, we're maybe five or six regulars at most, and if two of us work on an article for FAC, we don't have many other members for reviewing them. Dropbox sounds good, but mine is almost full due to work related stuff! Maybe group emails could be just as good? FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer emails. Even though I have occasionally received a link to a paper via dropbox, I actually have not a single idea how to actually make it work. Just as a note, I have an article or two on my list to get to FAC potentially, which no-one else has really helped with in detail (other than restorations or just improvements with no intention of GA). IJReid discuss 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay then, why not everyone list their priorities and why on the page, and whichever is the most popular can be worked on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'll be seeing if Paranthodon can get up to FA, as it is quite an old genus without any new major revisions coming up. IJReid discuss 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there are some PD images in the old articles? Really obscure birds with little published about them have been featured, so no reason why it couldn't be done with dinosaurs. As long as it is not a very recently described taxon with little coverage in the literature. In such a case, we could have to take the findings of the original description as fact, which would be biased as long as unconfirmed by other writers. As mentioned earlier, I will do Baryonyx at some point (will probably do Smilodon first with LittleJerry, but it's not a dinosaur). I think there is little chance Suchosaurus will become a senior synonym, and that Suchomimus will be sunk (as in that this will be widely accepted). I've started a list of WIPs here[2], could probably be done better... FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Amargasaurus is now listed at GAN, and though I could review that as well, and most other dinosaur article's I haven't had part in writing, and thereby increase our turnover rate (an in-project review factory in a sense), would it be "suspicious" if I did that just after reviewing Opisthocoelicaudia (same writer, same subject) instead of letting other reviewers take it (though this could take months)? Any thoughts on this, Casliber? Sorry for the constant queries about minutiae, but I've always felt that it would seem "suspicious" in a way if I reviewed several articles by the same writers or about the same topics in close succession. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I could, I didn't have much to do with Amargasaurus. Oh and any help with tips for Paranthodon would be appreciated. IJReid discuss 19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
One thing about the new Paranthodon size comparison, I don't think the tail spikes are part of the length estimate? Five metres shopuld be from snout to tail tip, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I'll make a new version anyways, based on Tuojiangosaurus or Chailingosaurus images here. IJReid discuss 19:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No hurries with Amargasaurus – I think we can put Opisthocoelicaudia to FAC within the next days! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
If person X reviews person Y's GAN/FAC, and person Y reviews X's, then the concern could be much worse if both are straight passes/supports, but if both are detailed with lots of things brought up to fix, then should be ok. I've reciprocated reviews with plenty of people before and generally almost all are as detailed (if not more so) than a completely new reviewer. If anyone queries, point them to a really detailed review and ask whether it looks like an easy ride....also, any niche article needs a lookover from both laypeople unfamiliar with the terms (to optimise accessibility) as well as those familiar/experience (to focus more on accuracy) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! My reviews are generally pretty long, with no regard to how much I've interacted with the nominator, so should not be a problem to point them out... And cool with the FAC, Jens! By the way, do you know if that really is the pelvis of the Opisto holotype I added a photo of some time ago? Why is it separated from the mounted skeleton? FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
IJReid, do you think you'll do the Amargasaurus review? FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I'll get on it now. IJReid discuss 19:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems the Opisto review has stalled a bit, perhaps advertise it at some Wiki projects? I'll review the Apatosaurus article once Jens responds there, and if Opisto gets no further comments, probably there too, though I GA reviewed it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see Opisto actually has three supports, so all it needs is the source review, then I'm sure it will be passed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If Baryonyx doesn't get a review soon, I think I'll go for it. After Apatosaurus passes (which it will, with three supports already) I'll nominate Paranthodon, and then maybe revamp Cetiosauriscus or Cetiosaurus. IJReid discuss 00:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, and actually, you could nominate Paranthodon (or another article of choice) already, since nominators are allowed to have one solo nomination and co-nomination at the same time. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok. But I still have some work to do on it before FAC. IJReid discuss 02:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just noticed LittleJerry might not be aware of this discussion, so pinging him. He has been quite a catalyst for getting articles nominated in recent years. FunkMonk (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but I'm think I'm done with dinosaurs for now. I think there should also be work done on old dinosaur FAs to make sure that they are still up to current standards. LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I just realized how desperate some of our older FAs really are, and until most of them are quite comprehensive, Paranthodon can wait, and instead I'll work on the FAs, starting with Herrerasaurus. IJReid discuss 00:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
On that note, the re-description of Stegosaurus has just been published[3], so the article could probably need an overhaul.... FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
IJReid, I hope you'll tackle this one next. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, skimming the paper, it seems there is room for expansion,k as the last major description is form 1914... Also, they synonymise S. ungulatus with S. stenops. It also seems the skull will be re-described later. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Future FACs[edit]

It seems we now have a member of most major groups of dinosaurs represented as FA, which is nice, since they can be used as examples for articles about their relatives. I'll soon nominate Nemegtomaia, as we have no other oviraptorosaur FAs, so I was thinking what the next goal could be? We have no therizinosaur FAs either, but I'm unsure which genus would be fit for it. Maybe Nothronychus? I see IJReid worked on Segnosaurus, perhaps that was with FAC in mind? And what other groups are underrepresented? The achievements by clade table also reveals some gaps:[4] Personally, I'd like to work on a ceratopsian soon, but it seems many of the "good ones" have major unsettled taxonomic issues... FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I was working on Segnosaurus for a short time, it has the potential to be a FA. Pachyrhinosaurus is probably the most stable decent ceratopsian, other than that most would have the potential for an "Apatosaurus" during a GA or FA. IJReid discuss 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that someone might split Pachyrhinosaurus, it has more species than any other ceratopsian I think, and holds most thick-nosed centrosaurines... If more species are found that fit in that clade (there is already one more unnamed[5], which makes four species), I think it would be too irresistible not to split... I like Protoceratops, but I think some of the literature might be hard to get... FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that all ceratopsids are likely to be revised significantly sometime. Protoceratops wouldn't be to bad, but another decent option is Leptoceratops. IJReid discuss 15:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that's right, seems there are some more PD images that could be added to it as well. And it's from Canada, no less! FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hehe yes. IJReid discuss 02:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect Leptoceratops is one of the more feasible options...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Side note, I plan to begin slowly improving Struthiosaurus, however, I require assistance of someone who knows german/germanic languages for some things, like the original description by Bunzel (pages 11-12, figures 1-6 on plate 5). IJReid discuss 06:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
There again I think MWAK could be helpful. By the way, Nemegtomaia seems it could stall at FAC, needs some comments! FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll gladly assist. But it must be said that the original description is very outdated. The images are of course very useful but largely self-explaining. It would be a bit of a puzzle to determine which are in fact of Struthiosaurus.--MWAK (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I do expect the original description to be baadly outdated, but it should be included anyways because of its significance. Also, I missed that page 13 as well would be needed, as the description of Danuibosaurus anceps (Plate 5 and plate 6 show its material). IJReid discuss 15:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
How will we proceed? Shall I insert the relevant information directly into the article or would you like me to provide a translation? That might take a bit more time, of course :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Simply inserting relevant information is fine, as long as ALL relevant information is there. I trust your judgement of this, you've been at it longer than me. IJReid discuss 04:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
OK :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
A heads up, the supposed egg of Struthiosaurus, Cairanoolithus, became a GA not long ago, it should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article (palaeobiology and history, I'd think). FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)