Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration/Diplodocus

This is the Dinosaur Collaboration page for Diplodocus. Please use the space below for discussion of the article. You can discuss changes, have facts checked, or simply tell us what you did to improve the article.

To Do List

OK, I removed the paleobox; the information is spread through the body of the document and dinoguy's age range addition to the taxobox. Article could do with a rewrite of the introduction, as well as clarification of species and size with references. ~~Images of actual skeleton would be good.~~ Cas Liber 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty good list (rewrite lead, clarify species, more refs and images). The article could also use a good history section ~~and there is nothing on its classification.~~ Pop culture section is pretty small too.Sheep81 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know of any more museums where they is? Cas Liber 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Another famous dinosaur - was the longest for a while - some research that Seismosaurus is a species of the genus. Complete skeleton to discuss; history; carnegie patronage etc, Better than Brachiosaurus (unmeshing the whole Giraffatitan thing gives me a headache.... Also the page is currently rudimentary Cas Liber 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a sauropod article ever gets featured, it should be Diplodocus: no messy Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus or Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan controversies, just a really long, well-known dinosaur. I'm all for improving this one, so that it may eventually be considered for a FAC.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fascinated by that TAIL. Ballista 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is a paleobox on the page..Cas Liber 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Are we going to do a 'purge' on paleoboxes or are they to stay? - I feel it should be one or the other, to save discussion time article-by-article. I tend to feel that, despite the work that has gone into them, they do not really add to dino articles. Howev er, consensus is important. If it is 'purge', should we just do it on AWB, to get it done? If that's the decision, I can't volunteer for a week or two - going to have a 'thin' wikipedia time, over the coming two to three weeks, owing to very hectic and time-consuming commitments in my 'other' job', but very willing to do when time allows. - Ballista 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

~~I think there is more or less a consensus not to use them on well-developed articles like this one will be after we are done with it. Sheep81 09:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

(just trying to see how much diplo-specific stuff there is to do. no offence guys ;)Cas Liber 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I moved discussion on possible adoption of bipedal posture onto sauropod page. Cas Liber 10:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys, get fire wise!

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 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) OK OK, I am waiting for my sauropod book I ordered off Amazon..........Cas Liber 09:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Got it. Bit dry but fun. Refs to followCas Liber 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]