Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

The Dinosauria

Given its importance, The Dinosauria could do with some attention. Ideally every instance where the book is used as a reference should link back to this article. I'd imagine the number of citations to The Dinosauria across our 1700 or so pages is quite substantial? mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't a bot do it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiiiii!!!

Hey everyone! I'm semi-sort of back, so I thought I'd drop by and say hi! Looks like you've been keeping up the great work! Two new FA's! From what I can see anyways... :D

I might be back to editing in the next year, but it'll probably be more with photography-related issues rather than dinosaurs, since I'm majoring in it. We'll just see how the year goes. It's been a long while. Good to see most of you are still around! : )

Regards, Spawn Man (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, hi there. :)

I reactivated the Collaboration, and the current one is sinosauropteryx, but nothing much has happened with it as yet. Photos are good too, even just taking snaps of nice flowers etc. in your neighbourhood :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

welcome back. de Bivort 02:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you! Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And going back over old archives here for like the last hour, I've come to realize that I was a dick lol. Reading what I've written, it really makes me feel like I'm reading something from someone else. I've matured since then and I can safely say that I'm truly sorry for being so annoyingly rude when I first started on this project. Although it's probably all been forgotten by now, but thought I'd say it anyway lol. ; ) Spawn Man (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no worries :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember you being a dick, Spawn, but you left around the time I was becoming active, I think. I hope to see you around a lot in the near future. :D Abyssal (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Copycat

Earlier today I removed some links to wikidino.com. Note that the genus articles are generally unacknowledged text duplicates of ours (some have additional press release-type stories added). J. Spencer (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

good move. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Will anyone here be visiting the Royal Tyrrell Museum?

I think that the Ornitholestes article could use a good photo of a mounted skeleton, and from the pictures I've found online, it looks like the Royal Tyrrell Museum has one that would do nicely. (We have a photo of the AMNH skeleton, but it's in the outdated, tail-dragging pose.) Unfortunately, all the photos of the Royal Tyrrell Ornitholestes mount that I've found on Flickr have restrictions that make them unsuitable for Wikipedia. (Here is an example of the photo I'm looking for — this one is marked 'no derivative works', which is very unfortunate.) If anyone from this project will be at that museum in the near future, a freely-licensed photo of this would be greatly appreciated! FanCollector (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A thing one could do, which has worked for me in the past, is to ask the Flickr users if they might change their licenses for educational purposes. That's how we got this guy's great images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabacchi/sets/72157615070441994/?page=2 FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a photograph of the Ornitholestes mount I took on my visit to the Royal Tyrrell Museum a few years ago. It's not the greatest shot in the world, but hopefully it will do until you can find something better. I'll upload it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And here you go. [1] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice! If you have more photos, please do upload! If it's of an animal we don't have proper pics of, then quality is irrelevant. Rather a crappy picture than no picture. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's great! Much appreciated. I've been gathering and summarizing sources for Ornitholestes, and I hope to do a full rewrite before too long. This could (and should) be a Featured Article; there's more than enough material for it. FanCollector (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could nominate it :) Course, it has to reach GA status first. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

On the boil..

Okay, Apatosaurus is the february collaboration. J Spencer has done work on Sinosauropteryx and it must be close to GA status, and Plateosaurus is surely not far off an FA nomination....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Color of ooboxes

Hi all, in case you're not aware, there's now a fully functional {{oobox}} that operates using the same principles as the {{automatic taxobox}}, enabling Veterovata classification. Currently, the oobox is using the same color as the animal kingdom, though it may be appropriate (or not) to use an alternate color.

Please place comments regarding the color of the oobox at Template talk:Taxobox colour. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

New template for ichnogenera/ootaxons?

We have quite a few ichnogenera/ootaxon pages. Sadly most of them are stubs. So, could it be useful to make stub templates for these pages? That would get rid of generalized dinosaur stub templates. (I'd make it myself, but I'm kinda crap at templates. So I figured I'd ask here.) Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a quick, easy job. I'll get right on it. I'll leave applying the template to you, though...I've got a lot on my plate right now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I know how busy feels :) I've just been deemed a bureaucrat on yet another wiki, but I'll go around placing it once it's done. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 01:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

New {{eggshell-stub}}. I also noticed that {{trace-fossil-stub}} already exists. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Brontomerus mcintoshi

The BBC has it, but we don't! Great potential for a DYK or even an ITN here. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is at Brontomerus. Does WP Dinosaurs favour redirects for species in monotypic genera? Lavateraguy (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Any dinosaur species should redirect to the genus name. You can see it in the project page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I should have thought to check that. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hypsibema articles

We have both Hypsibema and Hypsibema missouriensis. Shouldn't these be merged, as per project guidelines, and practically all other dinosaur articles? One is just a stub anyway. See talk page there for discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And now we're at it, what justifies the existence of this article? Tyrannosaurus "x". Should any theory about specific dinosaur genera warrant a separate article, when they could easily be described in the main articles? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

About T. "x": For example, the skulls of AMNH 5027 and Sue are radically different, but why are they different species? Could be sexual dimorphism, or that Sue's skull was flattened a little bit due to the 30-some feet of South Dakota rock on top of it. Bones vary a little between individuals anyway. I think that it can just be incorporated into the regular article. AMNH 5057 is NOT A REX??? Not in my book :) Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's like having a separate article about the Torosaurus=Triceratops theory. Is it really needed, when it could be dealt with in a small sub-section? The general public doesn't care about the specifics. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged into the main article on Tyrannosaurus. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning in more depth on the H. missouriensis page, but I think that article could serve as a standard. By which, of course, I mean "if a species spent 35 years under its own genus, and has been designated at the species level as a state dinosaur, then it is probably notable enough to have its own article, and there probably is enough information to write this article without it being redundant with the article for the genus the species was assigned to." Perhaps not *exactly* these qualifications, but you get the idea. The genus guideline is but a useful convention to prevent redundancy, and one I'm not advocating abandoning for most situations (fun fact: most dinosaur specimens that are not holotypes are only assigned to a genus, as Genus sp., or to a higher level). J. Spencer (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything2

There are six articles here that were originally transferred from Everything2 back in 2004: Anchisaurus, Barapasaurus, Baryonyx, Coelophysis, Hadrosaurid, and Staurikosaurus. I can't be certain, but I don't think there are copyright concerns based on how Everything2 operates. However, there is some archaic odd material in them (I just removed a line beginning "The tail would have been long and thin to balance the border" from Staurikosaurus which had been there since 2004), so it would probably be worth having a look at any material left over from their beginnings. J. Spencer (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Angolatitan, titanosauriform

Angolatitan says:

"Angolatitan was a basal titanosauriform"

"titanosauriform" redirects to Macronaria. The article Macronaria doesn't mention Angolatitan.

Do we want to add a mention? (I'm thinking particularly of the "Systematics" list.) Where? How? since Angolatitan is "unranked" within Titanosauriformes.

Thanks. -- 189.122.29.43 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I plugged it in under Titanosauriformess for the moment. J. Spencer (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

thx -- 189.122.29.43 (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bricksmashtv

Please keep an eye on the edits of user:Bricksmashtv. This editor has a history of creating random incomplete lists of dinosaurs, inexplicably revising List of dinosaurs, and now pretending that fictional dinosaurs are real. J. Spencer (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He seems like he might be a young guy, we should be gentle with any corrections we issue. Abyssal (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And the editor in question continues with his idiosyncratic habits and doesn't communicate. J. Spencer (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the fake article and issued a short block. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus Age

I can't even edit the T. talk page (semi-protected?) so I've come here. I think that some mention should be made of the geological age in which T. lived. I see it's pretty much standard in other articles. prob should go in one of the first two paras. Thanks guys. 124.148.205.27 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have missed this, already in the first paragraph: "Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the last two million years of the Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago." MMartyniuk (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. When I wrote geological age I didn't mean time in the general sense. I was referring to Age_(geology). The word "Maastrichtian" does not occur anywhere in the article and I think this is an oversight. Thanks again. 58.7.251.135 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Abyssal (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit in the lead. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ta. 58.7.251.135 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Referencing changes

Were wholesale referencing changes like this discussed anywhere? In such cases, where no specific page numbers are given anyway, changing to a Footnotes + References style is unhelpful. It needlessly forces the reader to look through a list of sources to find the relevant ref when this could be presented to them directly upon clicking on an inline citation. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning on adding information with cited page numbers to those articles, which was why I changed the reference style in the first place. You don't think those articles were chosen at random, do you? Abyssal (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You can bluelink the page citation to automatically link to the book reference. I guess it's not a style I'd use (though I am warming to placing all references at the bottom for easy mass editing) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what is done with this article, please use edit summaries when making large changes. Edit summaries tell your fellow editors what you're doing so they don't freak out when they see major changes being made to articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I see now from my watchlist what is being done. Abyssal is changing the reference style of many dinosaur articles. I thought it was just Avisaurus, which wouldn't be too bad if it followed a citation style preferred by the WP:BIRD folks. However, I don't support citation style changes like this on Pachyrhinosaurus. WP:CITE says to "avoid switching between citation styles" unless there is consensus for it. Also, there are so many still-unreferenced articles, I wonder what the point of changing between reference styles now is. It seems like redoing work that has already been done, when there's already still a lot of work to do. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to ruffle your feathers, I had no idea anyone actually cared how the references were formatted on these particular articles. I didn't think there would be anyone to form a consensus with, so I just went ahead. The Avisaurus article only referenced two articles and the largest one I switched over, Pentaceratops had five. I interpreted the lack of effort in finding sources for the articles as a lack of interest in the articles' sources. I don't really know what else to say except to express flabbergastion that these changes were so controversial. Is excluding footnotes directly citing pages and sections within an individual source really so important? The status quo method on those articles left me unimpressed, honestly. If that's what the consensus wants, that what you guys want, but I'm confused as to why that method is preferred. Abyssal (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My feathers aren't at all ruffled, but there's certainly something to be said for a consistent citation style across the WikiProject. As I said, Avisaurus is one thing, since it falls under more than one project's purview, but I can't see changing citation styles now for the sake of changing citation styles on multiple dinosaur articles. If the change in citation style was accompanied by improvement to the content itself (additional references, more sourced text, etc., as you often do) I wouldn't object (and who could?), but this is just work for the sake of work, and doesn't improve the article in any way: indeed, it makes it worse from the perspective of consistency across all the WP:DINO articles (and also it's time-consuming for other editors who have these articles on their watchlists to have to check each change, especially when there's no edit summary explaining what the change was). Also, you converted Corythosaurus, which had 10 inline citations and was by no means an undersourced article. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"If the change in citation style was accompanied by improvement to the content itself (additional references, more sourced text, etc., as you often do) I wouldn't object (and who could?)" Then why are you? Abyssal (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this better-sourced than it was before? It doesn't look like it. There were four sources before, and there are four sources now. All it did was change the citation style to something not in wide use on this project. This is what I mean. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I never got a chance to add the additional information. Abyssal (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My preference is one section, unless I have multiple pages from a book, which I'll list in a subsection called "cited texts" at the bottom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing, only I used "Footnotes" instead of "Cited texts". I didn't get a chance to add the information because of the controversy that emerged between formatting the references to agree with the formatting used in the passage of text I was going to add. I'm confused about the consistency here. Both Firsfron and yourself have expressed both support and opposition for using the footnotes format in the way I was planning to. You both have described situations where footnotes were desirable that fit a description what I was trying to do. Abyssal (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I just want ot go on record that I hate, hate, hate footnotes. Major pita, even in printed literature, let alone on the internet where the concept of links makes them useless. I can maybe see some utility in needing to show which page something is on in the reference but... actually I don't think it's all that necessary. Even the primary lit doesn't do that, and most people are reading this stuff as pdfs anyway where a simple text search can verify the particular bit of data or certain quote. But if everybody else likes having to maintain two references sections for each article, I'll keep quiet. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That used to be my opinion as well, but a while back I warmed up to footnotes for a variety of reasons. One was to keep readers from needing to hunt through documents to find the cited fact. Others include saving the text from being cluttered with in-line defined references, being able to include comments with sources, being able to source a controversial fact with multiple sources without having many little exponents after it in the article, being able to edit multiple sources easily because they're all defined in the same location, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by the difficulty of maintaining two sections, it's not like they need upkeep, and the templates involved are compatible with both in-line defined references and citing the paper itself so editors who don't feel like going through the bother of learning the footnote style can still use their own preferred way and let someone else down the line format it. Also, it's not like there are increased vandalism concerns with this method of displaying the references. Abyssal (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find an good number of in-line links helpful when looking up papers, since the links are individually clickable and you can get back to the text with only the back button. A solution would be to cite the footnote so you can click right down to the full citation, but again, it's needlessly complicated. Also I think any comments that an editor would want to add to a cite should go in the main text. i've seen, for example, some editor putting a ref after the genus name containing the etymology and its cite. Why not put the etymology with there in the article, without having to find these comments in the footnotes (actually this, above other things, is what irks me the most when reading books. There's nothing worse than having to flip to the back to find elaboration on something that could easily have been put right at the point it was being discussed). IMO this citation style simply complicates things unnecessarily. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

One specific use for footnotes that's relevant to us in WP:DINO would be, say, to include a fact in the article on Vagaceratops from a source that still refers to it as Chasmosaurus irvinensis while pointing out in the footnotes that it's no longer classified that way. Abyssal (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't be able to participate in this discussion until Monday. I have to work twelve hour shifts on the weekend. Abyssal (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Things seem to have petered out here while I was gone. I have a bunch of information I'd like to add to those articles that I switched the reference formatting of. The information is already written using the footnote format so I need to know if everyone is set against that format. If you are, I can reformat the information to match your preferences for the article. If you're open to using the footnote method, I'd have to undo the edits reverting the changes I made previously. Or maybe more discussion is desired. I'm open minded to any of these but I need a consensus to be reached before I start adding the information I had been planning when I started the controversial reference reformatting that sparked the discussion. Abyssal (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think people were waiting for you to get back to continue the discussion. It looks from the above discussion that the group as a whole doesn't like the new citation style. However, there are several active editors on this project who haven't chimed in yet. I think it would be a mistake to go forward without a few more opinions. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to some of the earlier comments in order to revive things here. Abyssal (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to be converting articles to the footnote style any more, but does anyone object to me using it in articles I start? If this bothers you I can refrain from doing it, but I have a bunch of pre-written stuff that uses that style and re-converting it all would be a huge bother. Abyssal (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess ultimately if it were a choice between no new content and new content with a differing ref style. I'll take the latter - there is by no means consensus on referencing on WP...however I do confess I prefer the way I do it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There's something to be said for consistency across the project. That being said, no one can reasonably expect that every editor will have the same referencing style, and you should feel free to create sourced content in any manner you choose on articles that you yourself have created, I think. (Just don't be upset when later authors don't stick to that style of referencing when adding additional material; it's a minority citation style, so most editors will not be adding references in that way). Firsfron of Ronchester 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Palaeontologist article that could do with some help

James A. Jensen, for the most part written by members of his family. Likely contains a fair amount of OR. mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Now the article's gone the other way, being reduced to a sub-stub. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw this a few days ago. thanks for the reminder. I've reverted back to the April 12th version. The reduction went far too far, removing a lot of good material, including any hint of notability, as well as removing content not written by the subject's family. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Input needed for fossil range discussion

Hi y'all; you may have noticed the past couple days that the letter Q was added to the right end of the fossil range. The edits have been reverted-- they weren't a trial, they were a user-requested edit that was fulfilled by someone, and they were bugged. This added an unwanted extinction to all extant fossil taxa.

Your input on whether to pursue the readdition of the Q is needed at Template talk:Geological range, where folks are determining whether the Quaternary period belongs on this time scale. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I feel that Abelisaur should be merged into Abelisauridae. The content seems redundant.Pinguinus (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Abelisauridae has several genera. We generally don't do that unless a family has only one genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Right now Abelisaur covers the (occasionally redundant, depending on definitions) groups Abelisauria and Abelisauroidea, which are more inclusive than Abelisauridae. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Error in ornithopod image

Could someone correct the image Largestornithopods scale.png? The colors labeling Edmontosaurus and Charonosaurus seem to be switched so that the name is applied to the wrong silhouette. A. Parrot (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I notified Dinoguy on Commons also, it'll probably be fixed soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it, just need to dig up the file... MMartyniuk (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Clade Labels and the Automatic Taxobox

With many (most) new groups being named as unranked clades under the auspices of the upcoming PhyloCode (however advisable using a code before it's active might be...), especially in dino paleontology, I'm encountering lots of taxa where the taxobox contains long lists of clade: clade: clade: etc. This is grating on me a bit from an aesthetic and practical perspective. With the new automatic taxobox (which has not yet been formally endorsed by any project apparently, but IMO it's much more useful than the old version) it's apparently possible to add whatever 'rank' labels you like to any taxon. This will be handy as more and more people move away from using ranks in the literature, in that we'd never really need to set up an alternate "PhyloBox" or something. The issue is that just listing "clade" is not very informative. Almost any taxon in modern classifiactions are implicitly clades anyway. So I was thinking, why not adpot PhyloCode terminology for these groups and add extra information by stating what kind of clade a given taxon is. Node, Branch, Crown, Apomorphy, Total group, etc. I set up an example of how this looks with Paraves. But I don't want to implement it more without some feedback. So is this useful and informative or overly confusing? MMartyniuk (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't those terms relative? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Relative to what? A node based clade is formulated like (x + y). A branch is (x > y). A crown is (all extant member of branch x). Etc. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll pretend that made sense. What I meant was that I thought those terms were arbitrarily assigned for the duration of an article or other discussion, only to be renamed something else in a similar study, if that makes sense. That is, if I were writing about tyrannosaurs and carcharodontosaurs, I might wish to mention a group that contains both, such as Theropoda, which I would might decide to refer to as the crown of the tree, with nodes being any and all taxa named in the chart. Am I mistaken? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, I believe so, yes. The confusion may come from the informal, pre-phylocode uses of these terms. I believe that under PhyloCode, there can't be a "crown clade" consisting of only extinct animals, by definition. The draft PC very explicitly lays out precise definitions for each of those terms (see art. 2.2 [2]), so nowadays referring to a taxon as a node regardless of its definition type is incorrect. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Then thank you for correcting me. Gotta love formalities... If referring to a taxon as a node is, as you put it, incorrect (I hope I didn't misinterpret your wording), then shouldn't that imply we shouldn't use the word "node"? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What MMartyniuk meant is that clades should be qualified and labeled by their definition, be it node-based, thus the pertinent clade is a "node", or branch-based with the corresponding clade being a "branch", and so on. Dracontes (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that-- I think I get it now (and that clears up my other question about what a crown is...) Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Anning

is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Anning/archive2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the classification

Following on to the conversation at Talk:Labyrinthodontia#Reptiliomorpha.2FLabyrinthodontia.2FAmphibia. A bit ironic as I was one who advocated for the adoption of Benton 2004 all those years ago, but frankly, using Linnaean ranks in the taxoboxes of dinosaur articles is becoming less and less verifiable, bordering on OR or promotion of a minority viewpoint. Literally nobody else in the field, as far as I know, has consistently used such ranks in any literature since the early '90s. In effect, we're using a 20 year old classification scheme that has been abandoned in this field. Previous efforts to switch this project to a more modern classification scheme suffered from the fact that a 'phylobox' would disconnect the paleontology articles from other that do still use ranked taxonomy in a discontinuous navigation. But, now with the automatic taxobox, we're able to type in any label we like (rank, clade, clade type, etc.) within the same system. So, would anyone be opposed to beginning a shift like this? If so, what published sources can be use to support the status quo? We're currently not even really following any scheme at all, as we've gradually moved away from Benton 2004, which has become more and more out of line with recent taxonomies (for example, Benton included Oviraptorosauria as an order within Aves, which is not followed by almost ny other sources). MMartyniuk (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree. If you by "verifiable" are referring to primary research literature you are right, but Wikipedia is actually supposed to reflect secondary sources, not primary, and ranks are common in textbooks. Dinosaur palaentology is likely the field with the highest concentration of phylogenetic nomenclaturists of any life science. While dinosaur research papers are mostly void of ranks, the same is not true of palaentology of other groups, not to mention zoology in general. I am weary about dinosaur articles having their own standard for taxonomy. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I posted this in WP:Dinosaurs and not WP:Paleontology. Such differences in usage are indeed fairly unique to dinosaur paleontology. So why shouldn't the taxoboxes reflect this usage? Alternately, do you know of any textbooks which incorporate ranks while, unlike Benton 2004, do not fall so far behind recent additions to or changes in classification? In all secondary or even tertiary sources I've read in the past few years like popular encyclopedias, ranks are nowhere to be found. Ranks should be cited to consensus like anything else. If you can't write in the text "X classified this group as rank y in source z, and this has been followed in major sources like a and b", why should such ranks be in the taxobox? Isn't that original research? MMartyniuk (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The taxobox of dinosaurs is supposed to have ranks because the taxobox is common to all life science pages, the article text is another matter entirely. Now, having said that, there are taxons that never have been given a rank, and these should of course remain without. As far as I remember, all dinosaurs are assigned to a proper order, donæt they also all have a family? The rest can remain rankless clades for all I care. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the ranks as having historical value. Is there anyway we could point out in the box itself that the ranks are just artifacts of the traditional Linnaean system and aren't given a lot of credence as objectively real things any more? Abyssal (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pterosaurs

Pterosaur has been requested to be renamed Pterodactyl, see Talk:Pterosaur. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

African raptor

There are certainly records of African dromaeosaurids (see the Theropod Database); however, this is more of an unwitting front for fossil dealer promotion than a discussion of the topic. J. Spencer (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Distal ungual"

What is a dromaeosaurid's "distal ungual"? Unguals are claws, right? So, is that specifically referring to the "killer claw", toe claws generally, all claws generally or what? I saw this phrase in a paper I'm working with and I'm not sure the phrase even makes sense. Is there such a thing as a proximal ungual? Abyssal (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a weird phrase, as it seems redundant to me - an ungual is a distal toe bone/claw by definition, from my understanding. I'm guessing that the phrase on its own means the claw digit of the toes in general, rather than referring to a specific toe. I am not certain though. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It mentions hand claws right afterward, now that I've reread it. I think they were just talking about claws generally in a really awkward way. Thanks for helpinng, though. Abyssal (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Dromiceiomimus or Ornithomimus

There's a taxonomic question being discussed at Talk:Dromiceiomimus (or Ornithomimus synonym)#Requested move, knowledgeable help required TIA. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New subproject

And now we have a WikiProject Theropods. Should be redirected, surely? mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm open minded to it, although not completely sold. Abyssal (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in it, so long as the editor(s) involved do not start making controversial changes to dinosaur articles, categories, or portal spaces based on consensus on that WikiProject. Having said that, the theropods are the articles which attract the most cruft and "resizing" issues, and occasionally weird editors who insist on making their own favorite theropod dinosaur bigger and badder than the other theropods. Something to watch out for, but at least for now, no problems have developed (have they?). It can be sent to WP:MFD if troubles arise or the project becomes inactive, IMO. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion here, and I think the same applies. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prehistoric_Mammals FunkMonk (can't sign on the keyboard I'm using here.)

Dromaeosaurid subfamilies

A new user has been creating pages for the various dromaeosaur subfamilies, like Microraptorinae etc. They're largely unsourced and in bad need of copyedit. I don't have time to re-write them at them moment but if somebody wants to take a stab at cleaning them up, they might be useful to have. Otherwise best just to re-redirect them to their parent clades. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is Talarurusaurus a real taxon? mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. Looks made-up. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

New article: Nototyrannus

Needs some serious TLC, if it's to be kept at all (?). mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

use of symbols

There is a discussion going on where people are unhappy with the biological use of the symbol † to denote extinction. Since this has the potential to affect quite a few of our articles it might be worth a look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WT:TOL#The biggest clades of them all...which ones belong on Wikipedia?

Please see the link above. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

therizinosaurids / segnosaurids

Therizinosauridae says:

The family Therizinosauridae was coined by Evgeny Maleev in 1954 ... Subsequent studies found that Therizinosaurus was actually a bizarre theropod, and that the equally enigmatic segnosaurids were close relatives. Since the family Therizinosauridae was named earlier than Segnosauridae, the later name became a junior synonym of the former, which has taxonomic priority.

Could somebody please clean this up - should it say that therizinosaurids and segnosaurids are two separate groups or that they are (now) one group?

We may also want to make some redirects for segnosaurid, segnosaurids.

Thanks -- 186.221.141.89 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

They were first thought to be two separate groups, later found to be a single group. So the older name Therizinosauridae took precedence over the newer Segnosauridae. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus on the main page?

I would like to nominate Thescelosaurus to be featured on the main page at WP:TFAR. The article was promoted in 2007 and looks like it hasn't degraded in that time. It's an incredibly interesting article, particularly in regard to the heart. The last prehistoric creature featured was Deinosuchus on 2 November, and the most recent date where a dinosaur was featured was Parasaurolophus on 1 August. I figured I should bring my intentions to you here first before nomination in case there are any objections or a wish to look over the article thoroughly first. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Melicans. Call me crazy and/or optimistic, but I was kind of hoping to wait until the centennial of it being named, which would be May 24, 2013. J. Spencer (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's not a problem then! That would probably be a better date for it for sure. I won't request it. In the meantime, if Raul or Dabomb schedule it beforehand, you can always contact them and request them to hold off on the main page featuring. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)